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 Richard Feldman's work on defeaters shows undercutting defeaters already require suspending judgment on the reliability of one's evidence-gathering process.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
One can rationally respond to undercutting defeaters by adjusting confidence rather than suspending judgment entirely on reliability assessments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Defeaters may operate on evidence quality without requiring suspension of judgment about the evidence-gathering process's general reliability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If undercutting defeaters require suspending all reliability judgments, agents face paralysis since no inquiry could ever restart without begging the question.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Undercutting defeaters challenge the source's reliability, requiring epistemic agents to question their evidence-gathering methods before accepting conclusions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Suspending judgment on reliability is rational when defeaters emerge, preventing hasty belief formation based on potentially compromised sources.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Feldman's analysis treats undercutting defeaters as distinct from rebutting ones, showing they necessarily target the epistemic process itself, not just conclusions.
?
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.