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
    Noninferential knowledge is secured by direct acquaintanc... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Noninferential knowledge is secured by direct acquaintance with truth makers, and inferential knowledge is secured by direct acquaintance with logical and probabilistic connections between known propositions and other propositions.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The acquaintance theory accounts for both noninferential and inferential knowledge through the fundamental concept of acquaintance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Noninferential knowledge requires no inference and can be grounded in direct contact with what makes propositions true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inferential knowledge requires awareness of the connections that license inference from known propositions to further propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wilfrid Sellars' Myth of the Given demonstrates that bare acquaintance with truth-makers lacks justificatory force without prior conceptual frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If noninferential knowledge requires conceptual articulation to count as knowledge, then acquaintance alone cannot secure it without smuggling in inferential structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus the boundary between noninferential and inferential knowledge collapses, undermining the claim's foundationalist architecture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that recognizing a logical or probabilistic connection between propositions is itself a normative act, not mere direct acquaintance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Direct acquaintance with a logical connection cannot by itself determine its correct application to new cases, as any finite experience is compatible with multiple rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore acquaintance with inferential connections cannot secure inferential knowledge without presupposing a community of practice that acquaintance theory cannot internally justify.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    PerceptionTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    Probabilistic connections(reasoning and logic)
    Relationships between ideas or beliefs where one thing makes another more or less likely to be true, rather than guaranteeing it for certain.
    direct acquaintance(Acquaintance theory)
    A non-inferential epistemic relation to a fact or state of affairs that grounds foundational justification for a corresponding belief.
    inferential knowledge(Acquaintance theory of knowledge)
    Knowledge secured by direct acquaintance with logical and probabilistic connections between already-known propositions and further propositions.
    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.
    logical connections(al-Ghazālī's distinction between types of necessity)
    A narrower set of necessary connections that constrain what is strictly possible or impossible; violations of these would be logically impossible
    noninferential knowledge(Epistemology of foundational or basic belief)
    Knowledge that is not derived by inference from other beliefs, typically grounded directly in acquaintance or experience
    propositions(Answer to the question of what metaphysical category propositions belong to)
    Entities belonging to a sui generis metaphysical category of their own kind, not reducible to other categories
    truth makers(Feigl's account of theoretical statements)
    relations between the factual referents of theoretical terms that render theoretical statements true

    Related

    Direct acquaintance with a logical connection cannot by itself determine its cor...If noninferential knowledge requires conceptual articulation to count as knowled...Inferential knowledge requires awareness of the connections that license inferen...Noninferential knowledge requires no inference and can be grounded in direct con...
    +5 moreShow less
    The acquaintance theory accounts for both noninferential and inferential knowled...Therefore acquaintance with inferential connections cannot secure inferential kn...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: knowledge-acquaindescrip
    View source passageHide passage
    Most classical foundationalists at least implicitly rejected the idea that the mere obtaining of a probability relation between one’s noninferential evidence that P and the proposition Q one infers from that evidence is sufficient to acquire inferential justification or inferential knowledge. Rather, they insisted, one must be aware of or have access to the probabilistic connection that obtains between one’s premises and one’s conclusion. Direct acquaintance with facts was proposed to end a pote
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Thus the boundary between noninferential and inferential knowledge collapses, un...
    Wilfrid Sellars' Myth of the Given demonstrates that bare acquaintance with trut...
    Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that recognizing a logical or ...

    Similar

    Inferential knowledge requires awareness of the connections that licen...82%Noninferential knowledge requires no inference and can be grounded in ...82%Aristotle held that scientific knowledge is knowledge of necessary tru...80%Realized knowledge is a discursive/conceptual relation that can only b...80%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit