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 If claims (2) and (3) are true, then claim (1) is false — that is, there is no knowledge

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.