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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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