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 Reflective equilibrium is a valid methodology for justifying inductive inference rules

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reflective equilibrium merely codifies existing inferential prejudices, providing no independent standard to distinguish good from bad inductive practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman's own 'grue' paradox demonstrates that indefinitely many incompatible rules achieve equilibrium with our considered judgments, leaving the method unable to adjudicate between them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A justificatory method that cannot resolve rival systems of induction collapses into coherentism, which cannot escape epistemic circularity about which coherent system tracks truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume established that no non-circular argument can justify induction, and reflective equilibrium presupposes the legitimacy of the very inductive practices it purports to validate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The disanalogy with deductive inference is fatal: deductive rules are truth-preserving by definition, whereas inductive rules are ampliative and their reliability is precisely what stands in question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rules of inference can be formulated to explain what one takes to be valid scientific reasoning, analogous to how deductive inference rules explain valid mathematical inferences
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When applying inference rules yields conclusions contrary to considered judgment, one can revise either the judgment or the rules until reaching coherence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The process terminates in a reflective equilibrium among considered judgments and the rules that best explain one's inferences
      ?

      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.