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
    [P1] holds that a non-introspective belief that p is just... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Defending [P1] by appealing to intuitive support contravenes both strands of the non-self-undermining constraint.

    [P1] holds that a non-introspective belief that p is justified only if the proposition believed plays a role in the best explanation of S's mental states.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Defending [P1] by appealing to intuitive support contravenes both strands of the...Justifying [P1] via intuition or as the best explanation of particular intuition...Such approaches treat intuiteds as supporting evidence for a principle that allo...

    Similar

    Having justification for believing that p does not entail that one act...86%Audi's condition requires the subject to unconsciously believe ~p rath...83%Being in the mental state of holding that proposition p is true is dis...82%What qualifies non-psychological propositions as our evidence in philo...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: intuition
    View source passageHide passage
    Even if there were sufficient intuitive support for [P1], defending this argument by such means would contravene both strands of the non-self-undermining constraint (Pust 2001). According to [P1], S’s non-introspective belief that p is justified only if the proposition believed plays a role in the best explanation of S’s mental states. No demonstration of explanatory relevance is involved in the two methods of justifying [P1] just discussed. Rather, each approach would take the mere fact that th

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective