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 Moore* is not transmissive of justification from E8 to Q8*

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Not-Q8* (the logical negation of Q8*) provides a potential explanation of E8 ('My experience is in all respects as of a hand held up in front of my face')
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Moore* transmitted justification for Q8* via E8, then E8 should count as evidence for Q8*
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.One and the same proposition cannot simultaneously be evidence for a hypothesis and its logical negation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Transmission of justification requires that the conclusion's justification be epistemically independent of the premise's justification (Davies 2004).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In Moore*, justification for Q8* ('I am not a handless brain in a vat') is a precondition for, not a consequence of, treating E8 as evidence about the external world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When a proposition functions as an enabling condition rather than an evidential consequence, inferential transmission is broken at the source.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hinge propositions in Wittgenstein's sense (On Certainty §341) cannot receive justification through ordinary empirical inference because they constitute the framework within which such inferences operate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Q8* functions as a hinge proposition: its role is to underwrite the evidential relevance of E8, not to be confirmed by it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition that must already be in place for E8 to count as evidence cannot coherently be justified by that same evidence without vicious circularity.
      ?

      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.