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
    Premise circularity and rule circularity are fundamentall... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Premise circularity and rule circularity are fundamentally different in their epistemic status, despite the apparent interchangeability of rules and premises.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.A rule can always be added as a premise to an argument, suggesting rules and premises are interchangeable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In Lewis Carroll's story, the Tortoise is willing to accept a premise that states a rule but refuses to apply that rule in inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Accepting a proposition as a premise is a distinct cognitive act from being disposed to use that proposition as an inference rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no rule determines its own application, so the distinction between accepting a rule and applying it cannot bear the epistemic weight Ryle-style arguments assign it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If grasping a rule already requires a disposition to apply it (as Kripkenstein's communitarian reading suggests), then Carroll's Tortoise is not distinguishing epistemic types but exhibiting a defect in rule-comprehension itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A distinction that collapses under analysis of what rule-understanding requires cannot ground a fundamental difference in epistemic status between premise and rule circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nelson Goodman's reflective equilibrium framework treats inference rules and accepted conclusions as mutually justifying, implying no asymmetry privileges one form of circularity over the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If justification flows bidirectionally between rules and particular inferences in equilibrium, then rule circularity and premise circularity are epistemically equivalent expressions of the same coherentist structure.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    A distinction that collapses under analysis of what rule-understanding requires ...A rule can always be added as a premise to an argument, suggesting rules and pre...Accepting a proposition as a premise is a distinct cognitive act from being disp...If grasping a rule already requires a disposition to apply it (as Kripkenstein's...
    +4 moreShow less
    If justification flows bidirectionally between rules and particular inferences i...In Lewis Carroll's story, the Tortoise is willing to accept a premise that state...Nelson Goodman's reflective equilibrium framework treats inference rules and acc...Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no rule determines its ow...

    Similar

    Therefore something beyond rule-circularity must explain what is wrong...87%Boyd's argument is rule-circular, not premise-circular84%Rule-circularity alone is not sufficient to identify what is epistemic...81%Rule-circularity is not vicious, unlike premise-circularity81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    It might seem odd if premise circularity were vicious, and rule circularity were not, given that there appears to be an easy interchange between rules and premises. After all, a rule can always, as in the Lewis Carroll story, be added as a premise to the argument. But what the Carroll story also appears to indicate is that there is indeed a fundamental difference between being prepared to accept a premise stating a rule (the Tortoise is happy to do this), and being prepared to use that rule (thi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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