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
    Hawthorne and Stanley's knowledge-action principles provi... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There is no single proposition expressed by the sentences used in the CP-based argument for Cartesian Skepticism

    Hawthorne and Stanley's knowledge-action principles provide independent empirical motivation for invariantism over contextualism about knowledge attributions.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge-action principles explain why high-stakes contexts raise knowledge standards without changing truth conditions of attributions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Invariantism avoids positing context-sensitivity for 'knows' while accommodating practical differences through action-guidance norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Experimental evidence shows subjects treat knowledge attributions as true/false independent of practical stakes, supporting invariant truth-conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge-action principles equally support contextualism: context determines both truth-conditions and appropriate action-standards simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'truth-conditions' and 'action-guidance' may be theoretically artificial rather than empirically discoverable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Invariantism struggles to explain why we withdraw 'knows' attributions in high-stakes cases if truth-conditions genuinely remain constant.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    Experimental evidence shows subjects treat knowledge attributions as true/false ...Invariantism avoids positing context-sensitivity for 'knows' while accommodating...Invariantism struggles to explain why we withdraw 'knows' attributions in high-s...Knowledge-action principles equally support contextualism: context determines bo...
    +3 moreShow less
    Knowledge-action principles explain why high-stakes contexts raise knowledge sta...The distinction between 'truth-conditions' and 'action-guidance' may be theoreti...There is no single proposition expressed by the sentences used in the CP-based a...

    Details

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