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 Evidential relations require the relata to be assessable as correct or incorrect by the same cognitive subject bearing the belief.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Evidence can justify belief even if the subject cannot personally assess correctness—e.g., trusting expert testimony on quantum mechanics.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates epistemic justification with subjective comprehension; unconscious processing provides evidence the subject cannot assess.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mathematical truths are objectively correct/incorrect independent of any subject's cognitive capacity to evaluate them, yet serve as evidence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Evidence must be intelligible to the believer; if they cannot assess correctness, the relation isn't genuinely evidential for them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Justification requires the subject to grasp why a belief is warranted, which demands their cognitive capacity to evaluate truth-conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Third-person evidence inaccessible to the subject cannot rationally guide their belief-formation, so it fails as evidence for them.
?
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.