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 proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments cannot swear allegiance to Strong Evidentialism (E)

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strong Evidentialism can be reformulated probabilistically: one may believe p when pragmatic stakes raise the epistemic threshold, not bypass it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.William James's 'will to believe' itself presupposes that evidential considerations have already produced genuine uncertainty, not full silence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A reconciled position holds that pragmatic considerations determine which evidentially tied hypotheses to act on, preserving evidentialist constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chisholm's epistemic conservatism permits belief in p when evidence is equipoised, provided no defeater exists, without violating evidentialist norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates Strong Evidentialism with Clifford's strict formulation, ignoring evidentialist positions that allow belief under genuine evidential symmetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Strong Evidentialism (E) forbids believing p when evidence is inadequate (e.g., probability of one-half)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theistic pragmatic arguments rely on believing p in cases where evidence is silent or inadequate
      ?

      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.