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
    Crispin Wright's work on entitlement shows that some seem... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→An argument is non-transmissive of justification when condition (iii+) cannot be satisfied under any epistemic circumstance, regardless of whether conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied.

    Crispin Wright's work on entitlement shows that some seemingly non-transmissive arguments (e.g., Moorean shifts) can confer justification when the reasoner has prior entitlement to the premises.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Confer justification(describes what these arguments can do)
    To give someone a good reason or rational support for believing something.
    Crispin Wright(The philosopher whose strategy is being discussed)
    A contemporary British philosopher who works on logic, mathematics, and language. He's known for trying to find new ways to solve old problems in philosophy of mathematics.
    Moorean shifts(an example of a non-transmissive argument)
    A type of argument named after philosopher G.E. Moore where you defend a common-sense belief against philosophical doubt by reasoning that the common-sense belief is more obviously true than the philosopher's argument against it.
    Non-transmissive arguments(arguments that seem problematic because justification doesn't pass through normally)
    Arguments where the justification for the conclusion doesn't seem to come from the premises in the normal way—justification doesn't straightforwardly 'transfer' from assumptions to conclusion.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Prior entitlement(what you need to have for these arguments to work)
    Being automatically justified in believing something before or independently of a particular argument—a baseline justification you start with.
    Reasoner(the person evaluating the argument)
    The person who is thinking through an argument and forming beliefs based on reasoning.
    Transmissive(describes how justification spreads through arguments)
    The ability of justification to 'pass along' from one belief to another—if you're justified in believing A, and A supports B, then you become justified in B.
    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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    An argument is non-transmissive of justification when condition (iii+) cannot be...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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