Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A subject's hypothetical doubt about a conclusion cannot retroactively alter the evidential relations that originally justified the premises.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Justification depends partly on the evidential standards a subject applies; revised doubts can reveal those standards were initially too lax.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Hypothetical doubt can expose hidden defeaters (alternative explanations, biases) that existed but weren't considered, genuinely altering justified status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Epistemic justification is partly normative—what we ought to believe given our evidence—and rational reconsideration can change what 'ought' requires.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Evidential relations are constituted by objective facts about how beliefs connect to reality, independent of any subject's subsequent attitudes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If doubt could retroactively weaken justification, the same evidence would simultaneously justify and fail to justify a belief, which is contradictory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Justification is a historical property of how evidence supported a premise when initially formed, not a present mental state that can be revised.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42