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
    If claims (2) and (3) are true, then claim (1) is false —... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    If claims (2) and (3) are true, then claim (1) is false — that is, there is no 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 (2) asserts that any of our beliefs may turn out to be false
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If any belief may be false and knowledge requires infallibility, then nothing qualifies as knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fallibilism (Peirce, Dewey, Popper) holds that knowledge does not require infallibility but only justified, revisable belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If claim (3)'s infallibilist definition of knowledge is rejected, the incompatibility between fallible belief and knowledge dissolves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The skeptical conclusion in claim (1) inherits the weakness of claim (3)'s contested Cartesian premise, not logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Contextualism (DeRose, Lewis) argues that 'knowledge' attributions are true relative to epistemic standards operative in a context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In ordinary contexts, the skeptical standards invoked by claim (2) are not in play, so claim (1)'s universal scope is unwarranted.
      ?

      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 (2) asserts that any of our beliefs may turn out to be falseClaim (3) formulates knowledge as infallible knowledgeContextualism (DeRose, Lewis) argues that 'knowledge' attributions are true rela...Fallibilism (Peirce, Dewey, Popper) holds that knowledge does not require infall...
    +4 moreShow less
    If any belief may be false and knowledge requires infallibility, then nothing qu...If claim (3)'s infallibilist definition of knowledge is rejected, the incompatib...In ordinary contexts, the skeptical standards invoked by claim (2) are not in pl...The skeptical conclusion in claim (1) inherits the weakness of claim (3)'s conte...

    Similar

    If claims (1) and (3) are true, then claim (2) is false — that is, the...92%If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false — that is, the...90%A priori knowledge — the basis for claims of necessary truth — does no...77%If any belief may be false and knowledge requires infallibility, then ...77%

    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