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
    It is impossible for the belief 'F, but my overall eviden... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is impossible for the belief 'F, but my overall evidence does not support F' to be both true and reasonable

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rational belief-formation requires that one's doxastic commitments cohere with one's total evidence, as defended by Feldman and Conee's evidentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A conjunctive belief is only as reasonable as its least-supported conjunct, so if one conjunct explicitly negates evidential support, the whole belief inherits that defect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Believing 'F' while simultaneously endorsing 'my evidence does not support F' violates the norm of epistemic akrasia-avoidance, which Titelbaum argues is a synchronic rational requirement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's Paradox establishes that asserting 'P, but I don't believe P' is incoherent even when both components could independently be true, revealing a structural constraint on rational first-person belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The epistemic analog of Moore's Paradox, formulated by Williamson, shows that a belief whose content explicitly contradicts the believer's own epistemic standing cannot constitute knowledge or reasonable belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since rationality requires that one's beliefs reflect one's evidence, endorsing a belief while simultaneously affirming one's evidence undermines it produces a self-defeating doxastic state that no coherent epistemic agent can occupy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The second conjunct ('my overall evidence does not support F') undermines the reasonableness of the first conjunct ('F')
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A belief cannot be reasonable if a component of that very belief denies the evidential support for it
      ?

      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 belief cannot be reasonable if a component of that very belief denies the evid...A conjunctive belief is only as reasonable as its least-supported conjunct, so i...Believing 'F' while simultaneously endorsing 'my evidence does not support F' vi...Moore's Paradox establishes that asserting 'P, but I don't believe P' is incoher...
    +4 moreShow less
    Rational belief-formation requires that one's doxastic commitments cohere with o...Since rationality requires that one's beliefs reflect one's evidence, endorsing ...The epistemic analog of Moore's Paradox, formulated by Williamson, shows that a ...The second conjunct ('my overall evidence does not support F') undermines the re...

    Similar

    A belief cannot be reasonable if a component of that very belief denie...87%False belief is impossible because one cannot believe what is not the ...86%Without such evidence, the position that SK is logically possible give...85%Julie does not have sufficient grounds to embrace a contradiction81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemic-self-doubt
    View source passageHide passage
    However none of the other answers seem to be entirely adequate either. It may seem, as in 1, that you could still be justified in believing F—in case your calculation was actually right—but no longer have strong enough reason to believe that the calculation was right. However, this would also mean that you could justifiably believe “F, but my overall evidence doesn’t support F”. Feldman (2005: 110–111) argues that it is impossible for this belief to be both true and reasonable since the second c
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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