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 For foundationalists like Roderick Chisholm, the non-inferential character of basic beliefs is not a gap but the very feature that confers their epistemic autonomy and regress-stopping function.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Non-inferential beliefs can be false or unjustified; lacking inference doesn't guarantee immunity from error or irrationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The regress problem may dissolve under coherentism or infinitism rather than requiring foundational stopping points.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explaining *why* basic beliefs stop justification requires meta-justification itself, potentially relocating rather than solving the regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Infinite regress of justification is genuinely problematic and demands a stopping point in any coherent epistemic system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Basic beliefs grounded in direct experience (like sensory awareness) require no further justification without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-inferential justification preserves our ability to have knowledge at all by anchoring beliefs to reality without endless chains.
      ?

      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.