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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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