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 An argument is non-transmissive of justification when condition (iii+) cannot be satisfied under any epistemic circumstance, regardless of whether conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whether justification transmits depends on the epistemic position of the reasoner, which varies across contexts, making 'any epistemic circumstance' too strong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Crispin Wright's work on entitlement shows that some seemingly non-transmissive arguments (e.g., Moorean shifts) can confer justification when the reasoner has prior entitlement to the premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A condition that fails under most epistemic circumstances is not thereby impossible to satisfy, so non-transmission must be assessed contextually, not categorically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peter Davies and Paul Dretske's reliabilist frameworks ground justification in truth-conducive processes, not in the structural relationship between conditions (i), (ii), and (iii+).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a reliable cognitive process yields a justified conclusion belief, the failure of condition (iii+) reflects a limitation of the internalist framework, not a genuine epistemic barrier to transmission.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some arguments are incapable of transmitting justification depending on a given evidence under any epistemic circumstance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Condition (iii+) requires that the belief in the conclusion be justified in virtue of the satisfaction of conditions (i) and (ii).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If condition (iii+) cannot be satisfied no matter the epistemic circumstances, the argument fails to transmit justification.
      ?

      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.