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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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