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 is rule-circular, not premise-circular — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

    Boyd's argument is rule-circular, not premise-circular

    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

    Notable Defenders

    Stathis PsilloscontemporaryPsillos 1999, Ch. 4
    Richard Braithwaitemodern

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Related

    A rule-circular argument for the reliability of rule R is not vicious provided t...Boyd's argument for the reliability of abduction is not viciously circularIn Boyd's argument, the use of abduction does not guarantee that the best explan...Rule-circular arguments are not necessarily viciously circular

    Similar

    An argument that requires the very conclusion it is meant to establish...89%Psillos's additional condition for valid rule-circular arguments is no...86%Therefore something beyond rule-circularity must explain what is wrong...86%A rule-circular argument is not valid merely because it does not guara...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    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,

    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