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 Abandoning standards wholesale conflates the failure of a specific standard with the impossibility of any normative epistemological criteria.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The claim assumes standards are separable from their historical instantiations, but perhaps all standards are equally theory-laden and revisable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing 'a standard failed' from 'standards are impossible' may itself beg the question by presupposing standards can have identity across contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some epistemologists argue that without ground-level justification, any appeal to 'normative criteria' simply relocates the problem rather than solving it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Historical cases show specific standards (phlogiston theory, geocentrism) failed without invalidating the entire concept of rational evaluation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical distinction exists between 'this criterion failed' and 'all criteria are impossible'—conflating them commits a composition fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even radical skeptics implicitly rely on standards when arguing against standards, suggesting some normative criteria are unavoidable.
      ?

      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.