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 'lucky assertion' — asserting a truth one has no reason to believe — is inappropriate even if the asserted proposition happens to be true.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Truth is the primary norm of assertion: if what is asserted is true, the assertion achieves its constitutive aim regardless of the speaker's epistemic state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Williamson's knowledge norm conflates the pragmatics of responsible assertoric practice with the semantic conditions for assertion's success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A lucky true assertion conveys accurate information to hearers, fulfilling assertion's core social function of expanding communal knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's cooperative principle evaluates assertions by their conversational contribution, not by whether the speaker possesses justified belief in what they assert.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a lucky assertion is true and relevant, it violates no Gricean maxim, making the charge of impropriety a confusion of epistemic virtue with communicative norm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The speaker has no reason to believe the cat was stolen.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Asserting 'I don't have a cat at home' without grounds for that belief would be lying from the speaker's epistemic standpoint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Asserting something true that one believes to be false constitutes lying.
      ?

      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.