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 Hume's argument, reconstructed by Sobel and Earman, entails that prior probability of testimonial reliability caps any posterior probability assigned to M.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Sobel-Earman reconstruction conflates reliability of a source generally with reliability about specific claims, which may have independent evidential bases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Corroborating evidence can raise P(M|testimony) above P(reliability) by independently confirming the testimony's content, not just the source's general reliability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes we must assess source reliability *prior* to evaluating testimony, but reliability judgments themselves often depend on testimonial consistency patterns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Testimony's evidential weight cannot exceed the prior probability that the testifier is reliable, since reliability is testimony's epistemic foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bayesian updating respects this constraint: P(M|testimony) ≤ P(reliability). Violating it would allow testimony to justify beliefs in impossible scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If we permitted posterior probability of M to exceed prior reliability probability, testimony could rationally convince us of inherently unreliable sources.
      ?

      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.