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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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