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 Peter Strawson's 'dissolution' argues that demanding a non-circular justification for induction sets an illegitimately high standard borrowed from deductive logic.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Showing that induction differs from deduction doesn't explain why circular reasoning should be acceptable in any domain of justified belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if we lower justificatory standards for induction, we still need some account of why inductive inference reliably tracks truth—not just dismissing the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strawson's dissolution abandons rather than solves Hume's problem; pragmatic vindication doesn't establish that induction is rationally justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Deductive and inductive reasoning have fundamentally different logical structures, so applying deductive standards to induction conflates distinct epistemic norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A successful inductive argument need only show that premises make conclusion probable, not certain—demanding non-circular certainty is categorically inappropriate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Insisting on non-circular justification for induction leads to paralyzing skepticism that undermines all empirical reasoning and practical knowledge.
      ?

      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.