Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Reid's appeal to common sense as epistemic bedrock merely relocates the justificatory problem rather than solving it.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Common sense beliefs can be self-evident or foundational without requiring further justification—some stopping points are necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reid's framework avoids circularity by treating common sense as properly basic, not as a claim needing external warrant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Relocating rather than eliminating the problem may be reasonable if common sense is more reliable than alternative foundations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Common sense beliefs lack further justification—we cannot explain why they're reliable without circular reasoning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Reid assumes common sense is self-justifying, but this merely asserts rather than solves the regress problem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Any foundational appeal (whether to reason, sense data, or common sense) faces the same justificatory challenge.
?
How convincing is this?
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.