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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Hinge propositions, as Wittgenstein argued in 'On Certainty', function as framework commitments that resist revision by argument alone, even sound argument.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42