Requiring acquaintance with both a probability-maker and the making-probable relation generates a vicious regress, since acquaintance with the relation itself demands further epistemic grounding per Sellars's critique of the given.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Epistemic grounding(epistemology): The logical foundation or justification that explains why you're allowed to believe something; basically, the reasons or evidence that make a belief valid.
Probability-maker(philosophy of probability): Something that makes an event or claim more likely to be true; the underlying reason or fact that increases the chances of something happening.
Sellars's critique of the given(epistemology): Philosopher Wilfrid Sellars's argument that you cannot simply point to raw facts or experiences as self-justifying proof—everything requires explanation and context, nothing is automatically justified just by being experienced.
Sellars, Wilfrid(history of philosophy): A 20th-century American philosopher famous for challenging the idea that some beliefs are automatically justified just by what we experience directly.
acquaintance(Russell's epistemology of singular reference): Russell's form of demonstrative identification, in which a subject is directly presented with an object (typically sense data) rather than an extra-mental individual
vicious regress(Used by Ryle as a reductio against intellectualist accounts of intelligence): An explanatory regress in which each explanatory step requires a further step of the same kind, preventing the explanation from ever being completed.

2 topics