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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Epistemologists should renounce the project of explaining knowledge a priori and independently of science

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Science itself presupposes logical and mathematical truths that cannot be validated empirically without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A priori epistemology grounds the normative standards by which scientific reasoning is evaluated as reliable or unreliable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abandoning a priori justification collapses the distinction between good and bad inference, undermining science itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant demonstrated that synthetic a priori knowledge—such as causal necessity—structures experience rather than being derived from it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P2 commits a genetic fallacy: the causal origin of a belief in perceptual mechanisms is distinct from its epistemic justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Science can explain how we form beliefs without thereby supplying the normative criteria for when those beliefs constitute knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reasoning independently of all empirical assumptions is impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The most troubling source of skepticism arises from the scientific understanding of how perception works and should therefore be resolved by science itself
      ?

      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.