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 successful confirmatory probabilistic argument may shift the burden of proof onto those who deny the conclusion M

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian confirmation shifts credence incrementally but never transfers the epistemic burden of proof, which remains with the positive claimant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Burden of proof is a pragmatic-dialectical notion tied to extraordinary claims, not a function of evidential weight alone (cf. Rescher's epistemology of presumption).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Miracles by definition make extraordinary claims, so the asymmetric burden persists regardless of confirmatory probabilistic gains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's argument, reconstructed by Sobel and Earman, entails that prior probability of testimonial reliability caps any posterior probability assigned to M.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the prior probability of M is sufficiently low, no finite body of testimonial evidence can raise P(M) high enough to constitute a substantial evidential case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If there is a substantial body of evidence in favor of M, those who deny M must explain either why antecedent presumption against M overrides this evidence or what other evidential considerations mitigate against M
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A confirmatory probabilistic argument, if successful, establishes a substantial body of evidence in favor of M
      ?

      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.