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
    Certain propositions (such as the laws of logic and anti-... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Certain propositions (such as the laws of logic and anti-skeptical presuppositions) are rationally acceptable without evidence, and this entitlement on no grounds constitutes a priori justification.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Certain cognitive projects could not be pursued without presupposing propositions such as the laws of logic and that we are not brains-in-a-vat.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no evidence that these presuppositions are false (nor any that they are true).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nothing will be lost, and something may be gained epistemically, by accepting these presuppositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's naturalism establishes that no proposition is immune from revision in light of recalcitrant experience, including logical laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logical laws are revisable under empirical pressure, their acceptance is grounded in evidential coherence, not entitlement on no grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A justification that is responsive to empirical defeat conditions cannot be genuinely a priori, since a priori justification must be evidence-independent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Crispin Wright's own transmission-failure arguments show that presupposing anti-skeptical conclusions cannot transmit warrant to first-order beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If accepting anti-skeptical presuppositions fails to confer warrant on the cognitive projects they are meant to enable, the epistemic gain cited in P3 is illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An entitlement that generates no actual epistemic gain dissolves the pragmatic rationale that distinguishes it from mere dogmatic assumption.
      ?

      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

    Key Terms

    Anti-skeptical presuppositions(as examples of propositions we accept without needing evidence)
    Assumptions we must make to function and think clearly, which work against the skeptic's claim that we can't know anything.
    Evidence(Distinguished from prior/intrinsic probability in the context of the low priors argument)
    Factors extrinsic to a hypothesis that raise or lower its probability
    Laws of logic(as examples of propositions that seem obviously true)
    Fundamental rules about how reasoning works, such as the idea that something cannot both be true and false at the same time.
    Rationally acceptable(as describing when a belief is justified)
    Reasonable to believe based on good thinking, even if we don't have proof.
    a priori justification(Chudnoff's epistemology)
    Justification grounded in the presentational phenomenology of intuitions, analogous to perceptual justification but directed at abstract rather than concrete reality
    entitlement(Wright's account of a priori justification)
    Being rational to accept or trust a presupposition on no grounds or evidence; distinguished from being justified in believing a proposition.
    propositions(Answer to the question of what metaphysical category propositions belong to)
    Entities belonging to a sui generis metaphysical category of their own kind, not reducible to other categories

    Related

    A justification that is responsive to empirical defeat conditions cannot be genu...An entitlement that generates no actual epistemic gain dissolves the pragmatic r...Certain cognitive projects could not be pursued without presupposing proposition...Crispin Wright's own transmission-failure arguments show that presupposing anti-...
    +5 moreShow less
    If accepting anti-skeptical presuppositions fails to confer warrant on the cogni...If logical laws are revisable under empirical pressure, their acceptance is grou...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: apriori
    View source passageHide passage
    A final view of a priori justification according to which it does not rest on nonexperiential evidence holds that we are entitled to accept certain propositions on no evidence and that entitlement on no grounds or evidence is what a priori justification amounts to. To be entitled to accept, or trust, some presupposition is for it to be rational to accept or trust it, though this is supposed to be different from being justified in believing it. Crispin Wright proposes that the laws of logic and t
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Nothing will be lost, and something may be gained epistemically, by accepting th...
    Quine's naturalism establishes that no proposition is immune from revision in li...
    There is no evidence that these presuppositions are false (nor any that they are...

    Similar

    If justification for a proposition does not require an argument, then ...83%It is possible to have justification for a proposition without actuall...82%[P1] states a necessary condition for the justified acceptance of any ...81%Wright intends rational acceptance of presuppositions to answer the sk...81%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit