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
    Justified belief requires ruling out all contrary hypotheses — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A skeptic can undermine all common beliefs by identifying a single hypothesis contrary to all of them that cannot be ruled out

    Justified belief requires ruling out all contrary hypotheses

    SkepticismTruth & 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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A single contrary hypothesis, if undefeatable, is sufficient to undermine any be...A skeptic can undermine all common beliefs by identifying a single hypothesis co...Skeptics seek hypotheses that are contrary to all or many common beliefs simulta...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Justified belief requires the ability to rule out all contrary hypothe...97%Justified belief requires the ability to rule out contrary hypotheses97%Only relevant contrary hypotheses need to be ruled out for a belief to...91%For each belief, there exists at least one contrary hypothesis that ca...87%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: skepticism-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    The final kind of argument derives from René Descartes (1641). I do not seem justified in believing that what I see is a lake if I cannot rule out the possibility that it is a bay or a bayou. Generalizing, if there is any contrary hypothesis that I cannot rule out, then I am not justified in believing that what I see is a lake. This is supposed to be a common standard for justified belief. When this principle is applied thoroughly, it leads to skepticism. All a skeptic needs to show is that, f

    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