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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Understanding 'makes probable' need not require acquaintance with it as a discrete entity—grasp emerges from mastering inferential rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sellars's regress argument targets propositional justification, not the non-propositional competence underlying relational cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Probability relations may be epistemically grounded in their functional role within successful prediction, avoiding infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sellars showed that justifying knowledge by appeal to 'the given' requires justifying our grasp of that given, creating infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relations like 'makes probable' are abstract entities requiring epistemic access via acquaintance, not reducible to their relata alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without independent grounding for relational knowledge, probability-talk reduces to bare assertion rather than justified belief.
      ?

      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.