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 probability relations are understood as real logical relations holding between propositions, the acquaintance theorist can secure knowledge of probabilistic connections through direct acquaintance.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Keynes's logical probability relations, which Ramsey directly attacked, lack determinate values in most real inference cases, undermining their cognitive grip.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ramsey demonstrated in 'Truth and Probability' (1926) that probability is better understood as a feature of degrees of belief, not mind-independent logical relations between propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If probability relations are subjective or conventional rather than real logical facts, acquaintance with them yields no objective epistemic foundation but merely privileged access to one's own credences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The regress-stopping role assigned to acquaintance requires that the grasped relation itself be epistemically self-justifying, but Fumerton's own internalism demands that justification of acquaintance claims be accessible to the subject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Recognizing a logical probability relation as genuinely truth-conducive rather than merely apparent requires a further epistemic act, reintroducing the regress acquaintance was invoked to terminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Real logical relations of making-probable between propositions, if they exist, are the kind of thing that can be directly grasped.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Direct acquaintance with such relations would provide the required knowledge without generating a new regress.
      ?

      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.