Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A criterion defining good arguments solely through belief... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A good argument is one that justifies its conclusion by providing good reasons for believing it

    A criterion defining good arguments solely through belief-justification systematically misevaluates arguments that are excellent by their own proper dialectical standards.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rhetorical, dialectical, and pedagogical excellences are distinct from epistemic justification and require independent evaluative criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument can effectively advance collaborative inquiry or expose hidden assumptions while failing to transmit justified belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reducing argument evaluation to belief-justification privileges epistemology over other legitimate evaluative purposes arguments serve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Dialectical standards themselves ultimately concern whether interlocutors have good reasons to accept conclusions, making justification foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claims that arguments excel 'by their own standards' risk circular reasoning unless those standards are independently justified as legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing 'proper dialectical standards' from belief-justification requires showing why misevaluation occurs—the claim itself assumes the answer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A good argument is one that justifies its conclusion by providing good reasons f...An argument can effectively advance collaborative inquiry or expose hidden assum...Claims that arguments excel 'by their own standards' risk circular reasoning unl...Dialectical standards themselves ultimately concern whether interlocutors have g...
    +3 moreShow less
    Distinguishing 'proper dialectical standards' from belief-justification requires...Reducing argument evaluation to belief-justification privileges epistemology ove...Rhetorical, dialectical, and pedagogical excellences are distinct from epistemic...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit