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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.