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
    Psillos's additional condition for valid rule-circular ar... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Psillos's additional condition for valid rule-circular arguments is not clearly justified.

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic circularity debates (Van Cleve, Cohen) show that rule-circular arguments can confer justification without any prohibition on antecedent doubt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Psillos's 'no reason to doubt' condition is added without derivation from independent epistemological principles, it constitutes an ad hoc constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ad hoc constraints introduced solely to block counterexamples undermine the theoretical integrity of the account they are meant to support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alston's work on epistemic circularity demonstrates that the normative force of a rule-circular argument cannot depend on the reasoner's psychological state of doubt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psillos's condition conflates a psychological, first-person criterion with what should be a third-person, structural criterion for argument validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Psillos requires that one should not have reason to doubt the reliability of the rule for a rule-circular argument to be valid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No clear answer has been given to why this additional condition should be accepted.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Ad hoc constraints introduced solely to block counterexamples undermine the theo...Alston's work on epistemic circularity demonstrates that the normative force of ...Epistemic circularity debates (Van Cleve, Cohen) show that rule-circular argumen...If Psillos's 'no reason to doubt' condition is added without derivation from ind...
    +3 moreShow less
    No clear answer has been given to why this additional condition should be accept...Psillos requires that one should not have reason to doubt the reliability of the...Psillos's condition conflates a psychological, first-person criterion with what ...

    Similar

    A rule-circular argument is not valid merely because it does not guara...92%A rule-circular argument failing to guarantee a positive conclusion ab...89%Therefore something beyond rule-circularity must explain what is wrong...87%Psillos requires that one should not have reason to doubt the reliabil...87%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: abduction
    View source passageHide passage
    It is fair to note that for Psillos, the fact that a rule-circular argument does not guarantee a positive conclusion about the rule at issue is not sufficient for such an argument to be valid. A further necessary condition is “that one should not have reason to doubt the reliability of the rule—that there is nothing currently available which can make one distrust the rule” (Psillos 1999, 85). And there is plenty of reason to doubt the reliability of IWE; in fact, the above argument supposes that
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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