Barry Stroud in 'The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism' argues that transcendental arguments fail when the skeptic can consistently deny the very epistemic capacities the argument presupposes.
?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.
(as describing what Plantinga's argument takes for granted)
Assumes something to be true without proving it—like how an argument might presuppose that logic works, without first arguing that logic is valid.
skeptic(The side usually taken by Academics in epistemological debates)
One who challenges the possibility of knowledge
transcendental arguments(Epistemology of self-knowledge)
Arguments that assume the existence of some sort of experience or capacity, then develop insights about the background conditions necessary for that experience or capacity, and finally conclude that those background conditions must in fact be met.