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 mediated judgment m is certain for a person A if m is i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A mediated judgment m is certain for a person A if m is inferred from a set of certain premises μ as a logical consequence

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Each member of a set μ of judgments is certain for person A
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Judgment m is mediated by μ insofar as A infers m from μ as a logical consequence of μ
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical consequence transfers certainty from premises to conclusion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Neurath and coherentist critics show that no judgment is foundationally certain in isolation; all beliefs face the tribunal of experience collectively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no member of μ achieves genuine certainty independent of the web of belief, the inferred judgment m inherits accumulated fallibility rather than certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Peirce's fallibilism establishes that even logically valid inferences from our most confident premises remain revisable under future inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Logical consequence preserves truth but not psychological certainty, since a valid inference can produce doubt if the inferential step itself is uncertain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bolzano conflates objective logical grounding with subjective epistemic states, making certainty transfer a category error across distinct domains.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Bolzano conflates objective logical grounding with subjective epistemic states, ...Each member of a set μ of judgments is certain for person AIf no member of μ achieves genuine certainty independent of the web of belief, t...Judgment m is mediated by μ insofar as A infers m from μ as a logical consequenc...
    +4 moreShow less
    Logical consequence preserves truth but not psychological certainty, since a val...Logical consequence transfers certainty from premises to conclusionNeurath and coherentist critics show that no judgment is foundationally certain ...Peirce's fallibilism establishes that even logically valid inferences from our m...

    Similar

    Each member of a set μ of judgments is certain for person A83%The existence of mediated judgments entails the existence of immediate...80%Two judgments can grasp the same proposition yet one can be subjective...79%Immediate judgments cannot be false and must therefore be certain78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bolzano
    View source passageHide passage
    With respect to all judgments \(m\) mediated by a set \(\mu\) of judgments, it is of high relevance whether the argument \(\langle \sigma , s\rangle\) corresponding to \(\langle \mu , m\rangle\) fulfills certain criteria. In the sections 3.8 and 3.9 we have already dealt with two logical relations which can obtain between the conclusion \(s\) and the set \(\sigma\) of premises of an argument \(\langle \sigma , s\rangle\) and which can easily be transferred to \(\langle \mu , m\rangle\): it is on
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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