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
    Hinge propositions, as Wittgenstein argued in 'On Certain... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It would be incoherent for a person who believes a deductive cosmological argument for God's existence is sound to then deny that God exists.

    Hinge propositions, as Wittgenstein argued in 'On Certainty', function as framework commitments that resist revision by argument alone, even sound argument.

    ?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.Empirical fact: people retain core beliefs (external world exists, basic logic) despite encountering contradictory arguments, showing resistance beyond rational persuasion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical point: foundational framework assumptions cannot be justified within themselves without circularity, so they must stand outside normal argumentative revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Practical observation: doubt itself presupposes a stable background of certainties; total revisability would paralyze inquiry rather than enable it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Historical evidence: scientists revised supposedly unshakeable frameworks (Newtonian physics, Euclidean geometry) through sustained rational argument and evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psychological alternative: resistance to revision reflects cognitive biases and social inertia, not logical immunity from argument—conflating causes with justifications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conceptual problem: 'resists argument alone' is ambiguous—distinguishing principled immunity from mere obstinacy requires criteria Wittgenstein doesn't clearly provide.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Conceptual problem: 'resists argument alone' is ambiguous—distinguishing princip...Empirical fact: people retain core beliefs (external world exists, basic logic) ...Historical evidence: scientists revised supposedly unshakeable frameworks (Newto...It would be incoherent for a person who believes a deductive cosmological argume...
    +3 moreShow less
    Logical point: foundational framework assumptions cannot be justified within the...Practical observation: doubt itself presupposes a stable background of certainti...Psychological alternative: resistance to revision reflects cognitive biases and ...

    Details

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