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 Doxastic and epistemic models can be related through bridge principles linking knowledge and belief
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Knowledge requires justification or reliability conditions that belief lacks, making their formal structures irreducibly heterogeneous.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Gettier cases demonstrate that justified true belief fails to constitute knowledge, so no reflexivity-to-seriality bridge can capture the real epistemic gap.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Williamson's knowledge-first epistemology treats knowledge as primitive and belief as a derivative, weakened form, inverting the bridge-principle dependency direction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If belief is defined as 'treating as if one knows' (Williamson 2000), then belief presupposes knowledge conceptually, making symmetric bridge principles circular.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Knowing something implies believing it
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If an agent believes φ then the agent knows that the agent believes φ
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Both informational attitudes share a common formal structure differing only in the reflexivity vs. seriality condition
?
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.