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
    A hypothesis being plausible means the hypothesis has epi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A hypothesis being plausible means the hypothesis has epistemic support warranting further investigation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.To say a hypothesis is plausible is to convey that we have some reason to believe it even prior to testing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Within an inquiry, asserting plausibility suggests we have reason to investigate the hypothesis further.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plausibility judgments are often products of cognitive biases like representativeness heuristics, not genuine epistemic support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that perceived plausibility systematically diverges from probabilistic warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Directing inquiry based on biased plausibility assessments can entrench false hypotheses rather than advance knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce distinguished abductive plausibility from evidential support, treating it as a pragmatic prompt, not an epistemic credential.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A hypothesis can merit investigation purely on grounds of economy or testability, independent of any prior epistemic support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating pragmatic reasons to investigate with epistemic warrant commits a category error between the context of discovery and justification.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A hypothesis can merit investigation purely on grounds of economy or testability...Conflating pragmatic reasons to investigate with epistemic warrant commits a cat...Directing inquiry based on biased plausibility assessments can entrench false hy...Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated that perceived plausibility systematically div...
    +4 moreShow less
    Peirce distinguished abductive plausibility from evidential support, treating it...Plausibility judgments are often products of cognitive biases like representativ...To say a hypothesis is plausible is to convey that we have some reason to believ...Within an inquiry, asserting plausibility suggests we have reason to investigate...

    Similar

    To say a hypothesis is plausible is to convey that we have some reason...90%The hypothesis of Natural Selection is probable to some slight degree ...85%The skeptical hypothesis argument establishes the need for justificati...84%Conceivability provides the usual kind of evidence for logical possibi...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    Argumentation theorists also make use of tools such as speech act theory (Bermejo-Luque 2012), argumentation schemes and dialogue types (Macagno et al. 2017; Walton and Hyra 2018) to distinguish different types of analogical argument. Arguments by analogy are also discussed in the vast literature on scientific models and model-based reasoning, following the lead of Hesse (1966). Bailer-Jones (2002) draws a helpful distinction between analogies and models. ” In brief, models are tools for predic
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit