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 (perhaps very weak evidence) for believing... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    E8 is evidence (perhaps very weak evidence) for believing Not-Q8*

    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.Not-Q8* provides a potential explanation of E8
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proposition that explains an evidential statement thereby receives evidential support from that statement
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Explanatory inference requires that the hypothesis be a *better* explanation than rivals, not merely a possible one (Lipton, 'Inference to the Best Explanation').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not-Q8* may be merely one of indefinitely many potential explanations of E8, none of which thereby gains evidential support over the others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a Bayesian account, E8 confirms Not-Q8* only if P(E8|Not-Q8*) > P(E8), which requires prior probability assessments, not mere explanatory relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The bare logical fact that Not-Q8* entails or explains E8 is insufficient for confirmation without specifying the relevant likelihood ratios (Sober, 'Likelihoodism').
      ?

      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 proposition that explains an evidential statement thereby receives evidential ...Explanatory inference requires that the hypothesis be a *better* explanation tha...Not-Q8* may be merely one of indefinitely many potential explanations of E8, non...Not-Q8* provides a potential explanation of E8
    +2 moreShow less
    On a Bayesian account, E8 confirms Not-Q8* only if P(E8|Not-Q8*) > P(E8), which ...The bare logical fact that Not-Q8* entails or explains E8 is insufficient for co...

    Similar

    E8 is evidence (at least weakly) for Not-Q8* because Not-Q8* explains ...88%E8 is evidence for Not-Q8* because Not-Q8* explains E885%Knowledge is an evidence-based act of considering something and appreh...83%Therefore E8 cannot be evidence for Q8*83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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