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
    Not every justification for a necessarily true propositio... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Not every justification for a necessarily true proposition should yield infallibly justified belief in that proposition.

    Skepticism
    ?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.Whenever one has any justification for believing a proposition that turns out to be necessarily true, that justification will entail the necessary truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing any justification to yield infallible belief would be too permissive — infallibility should track something more than mere logical entailment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If a proposition is necessarily true, then any possible world in which it is believed is a world in which it is true, making belief in it trivially indefeasible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Infallible justification requires only that no evidence could defeat the justification's truth-tracking, which necessary truths satisfy by modal definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Alvin Plantinga's modal epistemology entails that warrant for necessary truths cannot be undermined by counterfactual scenarios, satisfying infallibility's core condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' doctrine of clear and distinct perception holds that some necessary truths—like cogito and mathematical axioms—are grasped with a certainty that forecloses error by the nature of the mental act itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the justificatory act and the necessary truth are both immune to revision under rational reflection, Chisholm's requirement that infallible belief tolerates no error-possibility is fully met.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying infallibility here conflates epistemic fallibility of the agent with modal contingency of the proposition, categories Chisholm and Descartes explicitly distinguish.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Allowing any justification to yield infallible belief would be too permissive — ...Alvin Plantinga's modal epistemology entails that warrant for necessary truths c...Denying infallibility here conflates epistemic fallibility of the agent with mod...Descartes' doctrine of clear and distinct perception holds that some necessary t...
    +4 moreShow less
    If a proposition is necessarily true, then any possible world in which it is bel...If the justificatory act and the necessary truth are both immune to revision und...Infallible justification requires only that no evidence could defeat the justifi...Whenever one has any justification for believing a proposition that turns out to...

    Similar

    Whenever one has any justification for believing a proposition that tu...92%Knowledge requires justified true belief, not merely true belief.84%It is possible to have justification for a proposition without actuall...84%One could be foundationally justified in believing a proposition that ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: justep-foundational
    View source passageHide passage
    We still need to qualify the entailment in some way to circumvent the problem discussed earlier. Whenever I have any justification at all for believing a proposition that turns out to be necessarily true, that justification will entail the necessary truth. But we do not want just any sort of justification to yield infallibly justified belief, even if the object of that belief is a necessary truth. This problem is notoriously difficult to solve (see the entry on Certainty for more), but intuiti
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit