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
    Inquiry requires commitment to epistemic values — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Metaepistemological non-cognitivism is incompatible with inquiry

    Inquiry requires commitment to epistemic values

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism3 linked

    Related

    Holding metaepistemological non-cognitivism requires disengaging from epistemic ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Metaepistemological non-cognitivism is incompatible with inquiry
    One cannot simultaneously disengage from epistemic values and engage in inquiry

    Similar

    Denying epistemic value facts requires disengaging from any commitment...89%Disengaging from epistemic values means taking up a standpoint disenga...85%The epistemic constraint requires that ontological commitments be know...80%The relevant epistemic relation is belief.79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: metaepistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    Critics by contrast have typically focused on particular problems that appear to arise for metaepistemical non-cognitivism without assuming such problems carry over by parity to metaethical expressivism. For example, according to Jon Kvanvig (2003: 176), metaepistemological non-cognitivism is incoherent (even if metaethical expressivism is not) because a defense of the view will have to presuppose the truth of certain norms of justification and explanation. In a similar vein, Michael P. Lynch (2

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective