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 Alston's work on epistemic circularity demonstrates that the normative force of a rule-circular argument cannot depend on the reasoner's psychological state of doubt.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic justification requires appropriate sensitivity to one's evidence; ignoring doubt about a rule's reliability seems epistemically irresponsible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule-circular arguments depend on antecedent acceptance of the rule, which doubt rationally undermines—creating genuine defeaters for justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Alston's position may conflate normative force with defeasibility: a rule can be normatively binding yet its application defeated by reasonable doubt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Normative epistemic rules apply universally to rational agents regardless of their subjective doubt or confidence levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rule's justificatory force derives from its logical structure and truth-conduciveness, not from the believer's psychological state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If normativity depended on doubt, the same argument would be both justified and unjustified for different people—undermining objectivity.
      ?

      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.