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
    An inductive argument for [P1] based on intuitions about ... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→[P1] is unjustified

    An inductive argument for [P1] based on intuitions about particular cases of justified belief will not support [P1], since many of our intuitively most justified beliefs run afoul of [P1]

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    Intuitions (in philosophy)(the instinctive beliefs being evaluated)
    Gut-level beliefs or judgments that seem obviously true to us without needing proof, like how it intuitively feels wrong to hurt innocent people.
    P1(Premise establishing that self-subsistent entities are not immanent in humans.)
    Nothing that is itself by itself is in humans.
    Run afoul of(as used in philosophical argument)

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    To violate or contradict something; to go against a rule or principle.
    inductive argument(contrasted with deductively valid arguments)
    An argument that is not valid — it is possible for all its premises to be true while its conclusion is false — but which can still transmit justification on non-deductivist views.
    justified belief(Coherence theory of justification)
    A belief that is part of a coherent system of beliefs

    Related

    There are only two ways [P1] could be justified: by being intuitive or by being ...[P1] is not intuitive[P1] is unjustified

    Similar

    An inductive argument from intuitions about particular cases of justif...95%[P1] requires that justified beliefs play such an explanatory role reg...86%There are only two ways [P1] could be justified: by being intuitive or...85%Establishing that a class of intuitions is more frequently false than ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: intuition
    View source passageHide passage
    It has also been argued that [P1] is unjustified (Pust 2001). There appear to be only two ways that [P1] could be justified. It might be justified by being intuitive or by being supported by our intuitions regarding particular cases of justified belief. [P1] is not, however, intuitive. Furthermore, an inductive argument for [P1] based on our intuitions about particular cases of justified belief will not support [P1] since many of what seem, intuitively, to be our most justified beliefs run afoul

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective