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
    E8 is evidence (at least weakly) for Not-Q8* because Not-... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Moore* is not transmissive of justification from E8 to Q8*

    E8 is evidence (at least weakly) for Not-Q8* because Not-Q8* explains E8

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    If Moore* transmitted justification for Q8* via E8, then E8 should count as evid...Moore* is not transmissive of justification from E8 to Q8*Not-Q8* (the logical negation of Q8*) provides a potential explanation of E8 ('M...One and the same proposition cannot simultaneously be evidence for a hypothesis ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    E8 is evidence for Not-Q8* because Not-Q8* explains E897%E8 is evidence (perhaps very weak evidence) for believing Not-Q8*88%E8 cannot simultaneously be evidence for Q8* and for Not-Q8*85%The One Over Many argument claims that (P) explains (N)83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: transmission-justification-warrant
    View source passageHide passage
    An important difference between Moore and Moore* is this: whereas the logical negation of Q8 does not explain the evidential statement E8 (“My experience is in all respects as of a hand held up in front of my face”) adduced in support of P8, the logical negation of Q8* — i.e., Not-Q8* — explains E8 to some extent. Accordingly, since Not-Q8* provides a potential explanation of E8, is it intuitive that E8 is evidence (perhaps very week evidence) for believing Not-Q8*. It is easy to conclude from t

    Details

    Type
    premise
    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