DeRose himself acknowledges that within a skeptical context, the CP-argument's premises are uniformly true, which reinstates the skeptical conclusion locally rather than dissolving it.
?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.
dissolving(what doesn't happen to the skeptical conclusion)
In philosophy, this means showing that a problem isn't really a problem after all—like explaining why a puzzle disappears when you understand it correctly.
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.
premises(as used in logic and philosophical arguments)
Starting statements or assumptions that are used to support a conclusion—like the opening claims in an argument that lead to a final point.
reinstates(what happens to the skeptical conclusion)
Brings back or restores something; in this case, it means the skeptical conclusion comes back as being valid.
skeptical context(the specific situation DeRose is discussing)
A situation where we're being extra careful about what counts as knowledge—like when someone is actively challenging whether we can really know anything, making the standards for proof much higher.