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 McCloskey's philosophical position that epistemological standards should be abandoned is hard to defend

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Epistemological standards have already influenced the conversation of economists
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The standards of predictive success that raise doubts about economics are standards many economists already accept
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The only way to escape doubts raised by those standards is to surrender the standards that gave rise to them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemological standards in science are not merely conventional—Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes shows they track genuine empirical progress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abandoning standards wholesale conflates the failure of a specific standard with the impossibility of any normative epistemological criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.McCloskey's rhetorical turn cannot itself be evaluated without some meta-level epistemic standard, making total abandonment self-defeating.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Popper's fallibilism shows that standards can be revised without being abandoned—failed predictions refine methodology rather than justify its elimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Economics' predictive failures are better addressed by Lakatosian progressive problem-shifts than by McCloskey's wholesale retreat to rhetorical analysis.
      ?

      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.