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 historically variable norms can count as genuinely epistemic, the criteria distinguishing epistemic norms from mere social conventions dissolve, as Siegel argues against naturalized epistemology.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Historical variation in epistemic norms (methods, standards) doesn't entail they're merely conventional; moral norms also vary yet remain normative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some norms can be both natural and genuinely epistemic: tracking truth-conduciveness is a natural function that grounds real normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Siegel's argument proves too much: it would dissolve all normative distinctions based on naturalistic grounds, not just epistemic ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic norms like 'seek evidence' and 'avoid bias' have shifted across history, suggesting they lack the stability required for genuine normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If naturalized epistemology grounds norms in evolved psychology and social practice, it cannot preserve a principled distinction from arbitrary conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The burden lies on anti-naturalists to explain what non-natural property makes some norms epistemic rather than merely social.
      ?

      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.