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
    Metaepistemological realism requires only that epistemic ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Full-fledged idealism about empirical reality is incompatible with metaepistemological realism.

    Metaepistemological realism requires only that epistemic facts be non-arbitrary and agent-independent, not that they transcend all minds.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Agent-independence is logically distinct from mind-transcendence; facts can be independent of particular agents while remaining mind-dependent overall.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic facts about justified belief are non-arbitrary when grounded in rational norms, even if those norms are mind-constituted or conventionally established.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This view avoids both radical relativism (where anything goes) and implausible Platonism (where facts float free of all possible minds).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If epistemic facts depend on minds existing, then their truth-conditions seem contingent on a contingent fact—the existence of cognizers—which threatens objectivity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-arbitrariness typically requires grounding in something non-arbitrary; if minds are the only ground, the regress of justification becomes circular at the foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between agent-independent and mind-transcendent collapses under scrutiny: mind-dependence ultimately makes all facts agent-dependent in principle.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Agent-independence is logically distinct from mind-transcendence; facts can be i...Epistemic facts about justified belief are non-arbitrary when grounded in ration...Full-fledged idealism about empirical reality is incompatible with metaepistemol...If epistemic facts depend on minds existing, then their truth-conditions seem co...
    +3 moreShow less
    Non-arbitrariness typically requires grounding in something non-arbitrary; if mi...The distinction between agent-independent and mind-transcendent collapses under ...This view avoids both radical relativism (where anything goes) and implausible P...

    Details

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