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 generalized account of rationality that permits systema... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The use of heuristics—even potentially unsound ones—should be regarded as falling under a generalized account of rationality

    A generalized account of rationality that permits systematically unreliable processes conflates pragmatic usefulness with epistemic justification.

    ?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.Epistemic justification requires truth-conduciveness; pragmatic usefulness can obtain without it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Systematically unreliable processes generate false beliefs regularly, violating epistemic standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating these standards undermines the distinction between knowledge and mere instrumental success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reliability itself can be understood pragmatically—what works reliably in context constitutes epistemic warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some systematically unreliable processes (e.g., heuristics) provide better overall epistemic outcomes than perfect methods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes a sharp boundary between justification and usefulness that natural cognition doesn't respect.
      ?

      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 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Conflating these standards undermines the distinction between knowledge and mere...Epistemic justification requires truth-conduciveness; pragmatic usefulness can o...Reliability itself can be understood pragmatically—what works reliably in contex...Some systematically unreliable processes (e.g., heuristics) provide better overa...
    +3 moreShow less
    Systematically unreliable processes generate false beliefs regularly, violating ...The claim assumes a sharp boundary between justification and usefulness that nat...The use of heuristics—even potentially unsound ones—should be regarded as fallin...

    Details

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