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
    If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false —... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false — that is, there is fallible knowledge

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Claim (1) asserts that knowledge exists
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claim (2) asserts that any of our beliefs may turn out to be false
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claim (3) formulates knowledge as infallible knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge requires truth as a necessary condition, and a belief that 'may turn out to be false' is not yet confirmed as true, making its status as knowledge indeterminate rather than fallible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The infallibilist tradition (Descartes, early Wittgenstein) holds that 'knowledge' properly applies only when error is logically excluded, so (1) and (2) are jointly inconsistent rather than jointly refuting (3).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Claim (2) conflates psychological fallibility—we might believe we know when we don't—with epistemic fallibility, which is a distinct and contested property of knowledge itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Williamson's knowledge-first epistemology establishes that knowledge is a factive, non-decomposable mental state, meaning fallible 'knowledge' is simply not knowledge but rather justified true belief or weaker.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    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.

    Related

    Claim (1) asserts that knowledge existsClaim (2) asserts that any of our beliefs may turn out to be falseClaim (2) conflates psychological fallibility—we might believe we know when we d...Claim (3) formulates knowledge as infallible knowledge
    +4 moreShow less
    Claims (1) and (2) together entail that knowledge can be fallible, which contrad...Knowledge requires truth as a necessary condition, and a belief that 'may turn o...The infallibilist tradition (Descartes, early Wittgenstein) holds that 'knowledg...Williamson's knowledge-first epistemology establishes that knowledge is a factiv...

    Similar

    If claims (1) and (3) are true, then claim (2) is false — that is, the...94%If claims (2) and (3) are true, then claim (1) is false — that is, the...90%Claims (1) and (2) together entail that knowledge can be fallible, whi...89%Empirical knowledge is fallible85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemology-latin-america
    View source passageHide passage
    The trilemma emerges because, given that (3) formulates the concept of knowledge as infallible knowledge, only two of (1), (2), and (3) can be held together: if (1) and (2) are true, then (3) is false (there is fallible knowledge); if (1) and (3) are true, then (2) is false (there is infallible knowledge); and if (2) and (3) are true, then (1) is false (there is no knowledge). Pereda maintains that the solution to the trilemma is not to abandon one of the claims, but to recognize that there is b
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit