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
    Boyd's argument for the reliability of abduction is not v... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Boyd's argument for the reliability of abduction is not viciously circular

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Boyd's argument is rule-circular, not premise-circular
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule-circular arguments are not necessarily viciously circular
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rule-circular argument for the reliability of rule R is not vicious provided that the use of R does not guarantee a positive conclusion about R's reliability
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rule-circular arguments epistemically beg the question against skeptics because they presuppose the very inferential standard whose legitimacy is disputed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A reasoner who doubts abduction's reliability cannot be rationally compelled by an argument whose validity depends on accepting abduction as reliable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Cleve's criterion distinguishing benign from vicious circularity requires independent epistemic access to the rule's reliability, which Boyd's argument does not provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction shows that historically successful scientific theories with strong explanatory credentials have routinely proven false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If abductive reasoning reliably tracked truth, the systematic falsification of previously best explanations would be statistically improbable rather than historically pervasive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Boyd's argument therefore uses abduction to establish a reliability claim that abduction's own track record in science actively undermines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Notable Defenders

    Stathis PsilloscontemporaryPsillos 1999, Ch. 4
    Richard Braithwaitemodern

    Related

    A reasoner who doubts abduction's reliability cannot be rationally compelled by ...A rule-circular argument for the reliability of rule R is not vicious provided t...Boyd's argument is rule-circular, not premise-circularBoyd's argument therefore uses abduction to establish a reliability claim that a...
    +6 moreShow less
    If abductive reasoning reliably tracked truth, the systematic falsification of p...In Boyd's argument, the use of abduction does not guarantee that the best explan...Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction shows that historically successful scientifi...

    Similar

    Boyd's rule-circular argument for the reliability of abduction is not ...87%There may be reason to doubt the reliability of abduction.85%The use of abduction in Boyd's argument does not guarantee the truth o...84%The IWE community's self-justifying argument cannot be convicted of vi...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: abduction
    View source passageHide passage
    To this, Stathis Psillos (1999, Ch. 4) has responded by invoking a distinction credited to Richard Braithwaite, to wit, the distinction between premise-circularity and rule-circularity. An argument is premise-circular if its conclusion is amongst its premises. A rule-circular argument, by contrast, is an argument of which the conclusion asserts something about an inferential rule that is used in the very same argument. As Psillos urges, Boyd’s argument is rule-circular, but not premise-circular,
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Rule-circular arguments are not necessarily viciously circular
    Rule-circular arguments epistemically beg the question against skeptics because ...
    Van Cleve's criterion distinguishing benign from vicious circularity requires in...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit