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 Argument S cannot convince a skeptic who rejects inductive inference

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Argument S can be used to support inference X only for someone already prepared to infer inductively using S
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A skeptic is not prepared to rely upon inductive inference rules in the first place
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's circularity argument shows that justifying induction requires assuming induction, making it logically inaccessible to a prior skeptic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that inferential rules derive force only within a shared form of life the skeptic has already rejected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A skeptic who withholds commitment to basic inferential norms occupies a position that no argument internal to those norms can rationally compel.
      ?

      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.