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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A degree of relativization of some epistemic norms — such as what counts as good evidence or a better style of reasoning — is acceptable without succumbing to irrationalism.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic norms derive their normative force precisely from their claim to context-independent validity, as Davidson argues in rejecting conceptual schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relativizing evidential standards to traditions undermines the possibility of cross-traditional criticism, collapsing 'acceptable' relativism into the irrationalism it claims to avoid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'some' and 'all' epistemic norms being relativized cannot be principled without invoking a universal meta-norm, which concedes the anti-relativist point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kuhn's own account of paradigm shifts reveals that inter-paradigm rational adjudication requires shared epistemic standards, suggesting variation in norms marks failure of rationality, not its flexibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If historically variable norms can count as genuinely epistemic, the criteria distinguishing epistemic norms from mere social conventions dissolve, as Siegel argues against naturalized epistemology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some elements of rationality can vary with historic conditions and traditions of enquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Acknowledging variation in certain epistemic norms does not entail abandoning all rational standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strong rationality relativism is untenable, but this does not require that all epistemic norms be universal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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