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
    Information about the past can serve as a legitimate grou... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Information about the past can serve as a legitimate ground for believing something will happen in the future

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If information about the past were not a ground for future-directed belief, one could not specify what would count as a ground instead
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any coherent denial that past-information constitutes grounds requires the denier to specify what alternative conditions would constitute grounds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No such alternative specification is available to the skeptic
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inability to specify an alternative ground for belief does not establish that past information constitutes a legitimate ground; epistemic desperation is not a truth-conferring condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nelson Goodman's grue paradox demonstrates that infinitely many past-consistent hypotheses project incompatible futures, so past information underdetermines which future-directed belief is warranted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A legitimate epistemic ground must select among competing hypotheses, not merely be consistent with all of them simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The uniformity of nature—that the future will resemble the past—is itself an empirical claim that cannot be established without circular reasoning (Hume, Enquiry IV).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any argument that past information grounds future belief must assume the principle it sets out to justify, rendering the justification logically vacuous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A legitimate epistemic ground must select among competing hypotheses, not merely...Any argument that past information grounds future belief must assume the princip...Any coherent denial that past-information constitutes grounds requires the denie...If information about the past were not a ground for future-directed belief, one ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Nelson Goodman's grue paradox demonstrates that infinitely many past-consistent ...No such alternative specification is available to the skepticThe inability to specify an alternative ground for belief does not establish tha...The uniformity of nature—that the future will resemble the past—is itself an emp...

    Similar

    Justifying beliefs about the past on the RTM requires an argument from...83%Memory may represent the experienced event as happening in the past80%The step of supposing the future will conform to the past is not deriv...80%Any probable argument or argument regarding existence already presuppo...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    If anyone said that information about the past could not convince him that something would happen in the future, I should not understand him. One might ask him: what do you expect to be told, then? What sort of information do you call a ground for such a belief? … If these are not grounds, then what are grounds?—If you say these are not grounds, then you must surely be able to state what must be the case for us to have the right to say that there are grounds for our assumption…. (Wittgenstein 19
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit