Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A generalized rationality account that licenses inference strategies producing systematic errors is self-undermining, as Goldman argues in 'Epistemics'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Heuristics producing occasional errors can still be optimal overall; perfection isn't required for rational justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A theory's truth doesn't depend on whether following it always succeeds—evolutionary fitness requires tradeoffs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Goldman conflates pragmatic effectiveness with logical consistency; systematic errors don't entail self-refutation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A theory that justifies beliefs it simultaneously declares unjustified violates basic logical consistency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If a rationality account systematically produces false beliefs, it undermines its own credibility as a guide to truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Self-undermining theories cannot be rationally adopted without performative contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
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.