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 when the subject's doubt about the conclusion rationally requires the subject to adopt new background assumptions on which the premises are no longer justified by the relevant evidence

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic justification is a function of the evidence available at the time of belief formation, not of subsequent suppositional revisions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A subject's hypothetical doubt about a conclusion cannot retroactively alter the evidential relations that originally justified the premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, transmission failure requires a structural defect in the argument itself, not a contingent psychological or suppositional state of the subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a Moorean dogmatist view (Pryor 2000), perceptual justification for premises is immediate and not conditioned on the antecedent refutation of skeptical hypotheses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If immediate justification is genuine, doubt about a conclusion that merely invokes skeptical possibilities cannot rationally compel revision of that foundational justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim therefore conflates rational coherence constraints on belief revision with the prior question of whether warrant was transmitted at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a subject doubts (or suppositionally doubts) an argument's conclusion, this doubt can rationally require revising background assumptions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When revised background assumptions undermine the justification of the premises, the argument cannot transmit epistemic warrant to the conclusion
      ?

      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.