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 Epistemic justification is a function of the evidence available at the time of belief formation, not of subsequent suppositional revisions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Evidence's justificatory power often depends on how beliefs cohere with expanding information, not isolated snapshots.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Subsequent counterfactual scenarios reveal whether initial evidence was genuinely strong or merely seemed compelling due to bias.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scientific justification involves testing against future data; refusing to integrate it treats beliefs as sealed rather than provisional.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Justification must be evaluable at the time of belief; what happens later cannot retroactively alter epistemic status then.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Agents can only be responsible for beliefs based on accessible evidence when formed, not hypothetical future scenarios.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Allowing later revisions to determine justification makes epistemic evaluation dependent on contingent future facts beyond agent control.
?
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.