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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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