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
    Circular attempts to explain science within its own terms... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Circular attempts to explain science within its own terms are legitimate

    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.The circularity of explaining science from within science does not guarantee the success of the effort
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An effort that could fail is not rendered illegitimate merely by being circular
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Neurath's boat notwithstanding, Sextus Empiricus established that circular reasoning fails to confer justification because it presupposes what is at issue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If science's reliability is precisely what requires vindication, invoking scientific methods to establish that reliability begs the central question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument that begs the question against a coherent skeptical position is not merely unhelpful but epistemically illegitimate as a justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic circularity renders a justificatory practice unable to rationally persuade those who already doubt the method's reliability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A legitimating argument for science must be capable of addressing the skeptic, not merely reassuring those already committed to scientific norms.
      ?

      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

    Related

    A legitimating argument for science must be capable of addressing the skeptic, n...An argument that begs the question against a coherent skeptical position is not ...An effort that could fail is not rendered illegitimate merely by being circularEpistemic circularity renders a justificatory practice unable to rationally pers...
    +3 moreShow less
    If science's reliability is precisely what requires vindication, invoking scient...Neurath's boat notwithstanding, Sextus Empiricus established that circular reaso...The circularity of explaining science from within science does not guarantee the...

    Similar

    The Darwinian appeal to explain science from within science may not su...81%A scientist can treat a theory as an adequate basis for research witho...81%An acceptable analogy provides defeasible grounds for taking a scienti...78%The principles of scientific explanation are self-evident and not reac...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    Two kinds of replies to this objection are worth considering. The first, suggested in the brief statement of Quine’s new methodology, is to reject the old problem as based on the false presupposition that one can vindicate scientific and other knowledge on the basis of propositions that are knowable a priori. The difficulty with this response is that it raises the difficult issues of whether a priori knowledge is possible and whether we can determine an answer to that question a posteriori. Anot
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit