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
    An argument is non-transmissive of justification when the... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An argument is non-transmissive of justification when the evidence already directly justifies the conclusion independently of the argument

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If evidence e directly justifies conclusion q, then justifying q does not depend on knowledge of the inferential relation between premise p and conclusion q
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the inferential relation between p and q is not needed to justify q, then condition (iii+) is unfulfilled regardless of whether conditions (i) and (ii) are fulfilled
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Justification admits of degrees, so an argument can increase the degree of justification for q even when e already justifies q independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-transmission requires that the argument adds zero justificatory weight, but independent justification of q by e does not entail the argument contributes nothing additional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, condition (iii+) can be fulfilled even when e directly justifies q, provided the inferential route raises the probability or coherence of q beyond what e alone secures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dretske's conclusive reasons account holds that what justifies a belief is sensitive to the inferential structure through which it is formed, not merely the evidential state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the inferential relation between p and q is part of the justification-generating mechanism, then bypassing it yields a distinct, potentially weaker epistemic state even when e is present.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hence the claim conflates the source of justification with its transmission route, a distinction Dretske's tracking theory demands we preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Dretske's conclusive reasons account holds that what justifies a belief is sensi...Hence the claim conflates the source of justification with its transmission rout...If evidence e directly justifies conclusion q, then justifying q does not depend...If the inferential relation between p and q is not needed to justify q, then con...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the inferential relation between p and q is part of the justification-generat...Justification admits of degrees, so an argument can increase the degree of justi...Non-transmission requires that the argument adds zero justificatory weight, but ...Therefore, condition (iii+) can be fulfilled even when e directly justifies q, p...

    Similar

    An argument is non-transmissive when the subject's doubt about the con...91%An argument is non-transmissive of justification when condition (iii+)...90%Some arguments are incapable of transmitting justification depending o...86%The property of being a transmissive argument does not coincide with t...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: transmission-justification-warrant
    View source passageHide passage
    So far we have seen that non-transmissivity may depend on premise-circularity or on reliance on collateral information. There is at least a third possibility: an argument can be non-transmissive of the justification for its premise(s) based on given evidence because that evidence justifies directly the conclusion—i.e., independently of the argument itself (cf. Davies 2009). In this case the argument instantiates indirectness, for s’s going through the argument would result in nothing but an indi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit