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 the justificatory act and the necessary truth are both immune to revision under rational reflection, Chisholm's requirement that infallible belief tolerates no error-possibility is fully met.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Immunity to rational revision may indicate dogmatism rather than infallibility; irrationality is not epistemic virtue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The justificatory act and necessary truth being unchangeable under reflection doesn't ensure their conjunction is infallible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Human cognitive limitations might make us unable to rationally revise even false beliefs, so immunity ≠ truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rational reflection is the standard process for revising beliefs; immunity to it indicates genuine infallibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessary truths cannot be false in any possible world, so their immunity to revision reflects their metaphysical status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If both components resist rational revision, their conjunction satisfies Chisholm's no-error-possibility requirement.
      ?

      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.