Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If the revealed irrationality is located in the belief state itself, the argument's force is epistemic, not merely pragmatic.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The distinction between epistemic and pragmatic force is artificial; all arguments affect behavior through belief-revision incentives, semantic location notwithstanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Identifying irrationality 'in the belief state' could merely describe where we locate the problem, not what makes the argument's force genuinely epistemic rather than pragmatic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if a belief contains internal irrationality, showing why one ought to abandon it often relies on pragmatic considerations about rationality's value.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Epistemic critique targets truth-conduciveness; if a belief is internally incoherent, it fails rationality standards independent of consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Pragmatic arguments work via incentives or outcomes; epistemic ones work via logical structure. Locating irrationality in belief state itself indicates the latter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A belief's rational status depends on its justification and coherence, not merely whether accepting it produces good results.
?
How convincing is this?
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.