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
    Dynamic principles like Conditionalization must be justif... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Dynamic principles like Conditionalization must be justified in order to justify a proper theory of inference and answer Hume's challenge

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A full theory of inference that answers Hume's challenge must appeal to additional dynamic principles like Conditionalization
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Justifying a theory of inference requires justifying all principles the theory appeals to
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Conditionalization can be pragmatically vindicated through Dutch Book arguments without requiring independent epistemic justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dutch Book coherence constraints derive their normative force from rationality norms, not from solving Hume's inductive problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle justified by pragmatic coherence constraints answers the skeptic sufficiently without requiring foundational epistemic grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's challenge concerns the justification of inductive inference, not the updating of prior probabilities given new evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conditionalization presupposes a prior probability distribution and governs updating, leaving the skeptical problem about priors entirely untouched.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Justifying Conditionalization is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient for answering Hume's challenge about the rationality of induction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A full theory of inference that answers Hume's challenge must appeal to addition...A principle justified by pragmatic coherence constraints answers the skeptic suf...Conditionalization can be pragmatically vindicated through Dutch Book arguments ...Conditionalization presupposes a prior probability distribution and governs upda...
    +4 moreShow less
    Dutch Book coherence constraints derive their normative force from rationality n...Hume's challenge concerns the justification of inductive inference, not the upda...Justifying Conditionalization is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient for ...Justifying a theory of inference requires justifying all principles the theory a...

    Similar

    Justifying a theory of inference requires justifying all principles th...91%A full theory of inference that answers Hume's challenge must appeal t...87%Inductive inference is justified even without proof that its conclusio...82%The presence of such a principle means what is expressed is a genuine ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: formal-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    The details of these arguments can get very technical, so we won’t examine them here. The important thing for the moment is to appreciate that (i) inductive inference is a dynamic process, since it involves changing our beliefs over time, but (ii) the general probability axioms, and particular assignments of prior probabilities like Carnap’s, are static, concerning only the initial probabilities. Thus (iii) a full theory of inference that answers Hume’s challenge must appeal to additional, dynam
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit