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 Rule-circularity is not vicious, unlike premise-circularity

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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