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
    Rule-circularity is not vicious, unlike premise-circularity — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Rule-circularity is not vicious, unlike premise-circularity

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is not necessary to know or justifiably believe that a rule R is reliable in order to move to a justified conclusion using rule R
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.As long as rule R is in fact reliable, one can form a justified belief in the conclusion of an argument relying on R, provided one has justified belief in the premises
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic justification requires that the reasoner have reflective access to what makes their inference truth-conducive, not merely that reliability obtains externally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rule whose reliability cannot be established without invoking that very rule fails the reflective access condition, regardless of whether reliability is assumed in premises or embedded in the rule itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore rule-circularity and premise-circularity are equally vicious when evaluated by internalist standards of justification, as Fumerton's acquaintance theory and Bonjour's coherentism both entail.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Cleve's distinction between rule-circular and premise-circular reasoning collapses if any competent reconstruction of the inference makes the reliability claim an implicit suppressed premise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's original regress shows that any attempt to validate induction by its past success necessarily smuggles reliability into the argumentative structure as a presupposition, not merely as a procedural rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A rule whose reliability cannot be established without invoking that very rule f...As long as rule R is in fact reliable, one can form a justified belief in the co...Epistemic justification requires that the reasoner have reflective access to wha...Hume's original regress shows that any attempt to validate induction by its past...
    +3 moreShow less
    It is not necessary to know or justifiably believe that a rule R is reliable in ...Therefore rule-circularity and premise-circularity are equally vicious when eval...Van Cleve's distinction between rule-circular and premise-circular reasoning col...

    Similar

    If two arguments are structurally equivalent with respect to circulari...87%There is no vicious circularity in the broader argument for the Clarit...86%Rule-circular arguments are not necessarily viciously circular86%An argument that assumes its conclusion in its premises is viciously c...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    Some authors have then argued that although premise-circularity is vicious, rule-circularity is not (Cleve 1984; Papineau 1992). One reason for thinking rule-circularity is not vicious would be if it is not necessary to know or even justifiably believe that rule R is reliable in order to move to a justified conclusion using the rule. This is a claim made by externalists about justification (Cleve 1984). They say that as long as R is in fact reliable, one can form a justified belief in the conclu
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit