Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Knowledge consists in the relation of one thing to some other thing, as which it is known.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Knowledge requires justification beyond mere relational identification, as Gettier cases demonstrate that true belief via correct identification can still fail to constitute knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A subject can correctly identify X as Y through lucky coincidence, meaning the relational account Schlick offers is insufficient without an anti-luck or causal constraint.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that any relational 'identification' presupposes a prior normative framework that cannot itself be grounded in another identification relation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If knowledge is grounded solely in a thing-to-thing relation, the regress of what licenses that relation undermines the foundational role Schlick assigns to identification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Knowledge consists in the identification of that which is known with that as which it is known.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42