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 the evidence already directly justifies the conclusion independently of the argument

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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