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 Any argument appealing to induction's past success as evidence of future reliability already presupposes the very inferential standard under dispute.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Appealing to past success uses *empirical facts* (what happened), not the inferential standard (how we should reason).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All justification involves some starting assumptions; presupposing induction doesn't make it viciously circular if warranted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many reliable methods (scientific induction, bayesian updating) prove effective through success without requiring independent justification first.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Using induction's past success to justify future induction assumes induction works, which is exactly what needs proof.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any non-inductive justification of induction (deductive or other) would beg the question differently, not resolve it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Circular reasoning remains circular regardless of whether the circle is acknowledged or hidden in background assumptions.
      ?

      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.