Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Clifford's evidentialism targets not the stakes of a belief but the epistemic irresponsibility of believing without sufficient evidence regardless of stakes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Prudence sometimes rationally requires belief proportional to practical stakes, not merely available evidence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Real-world decisions demand action despite uncertainty; rigid evidentialism paralyzes necessary practical reasoning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Context-sensitivity in justified belief is how rational agents actually navigate competing epistemic and practical demands.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Epistemic duties are deontological obligations to our cognitive faculties, independent of practical consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Allowing stakes to lower evidential standards creates a slippery slope where any convenient belief becomes justified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Intellectual integrity requires uniform evidential standards across domains to maintain coherent rational agency.
?
How convincing is this?
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.