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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Requiring occurrent propositional knowledge as a precondition for epistemic moves leads to an infinite regress.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' argues that some propositions function as hinges: they are not known occurrently but stand fast as the unquestioned framework enabling inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hinge propositions are not premises in an inferential chain, so requiring their occurrent recognition as a precondition for every epistemic move misrepresents their logical role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the regress argument depends on treating all epistemic warrants as propositional premises subject to further justification, it begs the question against non-propositional foundationalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ryle's distinction between knowing-that and knowing-how shows that many epistemic moves are grounded in dispositions, not occurrent propositional states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If foundational epistemic moves are exercises of competence rather than applications of propositions, Carroll's regress never gets started.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If occurrent knowledge of a proposition P is required before one can make an epistemic move, then one would need occurrent knowledge of a further proposition to license the use of P, and so on without end.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lewis Carroll's tortoise-and-Achilles argument demonstrates this regress structure.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42