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
    Claim (3) formulates knowledge as infallible knowledge — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Connected to 3 discussions

    Supports→If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false — that is, there is fallible knowledge
    Supports→If claims (1) and (3) are true, then claim (2) is false — that is, there is infallible knowledge
    Supports→If claims (2) and (3) are true, then claim (1) is false — that is, there is no knowledge

    Claim (3) formulates knowledge as infallible knowledge

    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

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    Claim (1) asserts that knowledge exists

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Claim (2) asserts that any of our beliefs may turn out to be false
    Claims (1) and (2) together entail that knowledge can be fallible, which contrad...
    If any belief may be false and knowledge requires infallibility, then nothing qu...
    +4 moreShow less
    If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false — that is, there is fall...If claims (1) and (3) are true, then claim (2) is false — that is, there is infa...If claims (2) and (3) are true, then claim (1) is false — that is, there is no k...If knowledge exists and knowledge is infallible, then not all beliefs can turn o...

    Similar

    If claims (1) and (3) are true, then claim (2) is false — that is, the...83%Claims (1) and (2) together entail that knowledge can be fallible, whi...82%If any belief may be false and knowledge requires infallibility, then ...81%If knowledge exists and knowledge is infallible, then not all beliefs ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: epistemology-latin-america
    View source passageHide passage
    The trilemma emerges because, given that (3) formulates the concept of knowledge as infallible knowledge, only two of (1), (2), and (3) can be held together: if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) is false (there is fallible knowledge); if (1) and (3) are true, then (2) is false (there is infallible knowledge); and if (2) and (3) are true, then (1) is false (there is no knowledge). Pereda maintains that the solution to the trilemma is not to abandon one of the claims, but to recognize that there is b

    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