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 Scholastic appeals to external authority cannot yield genuine knowledge.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Scholastic knowledge was derived from syllogistic and demonstrative logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Syllogistic and demonstrative logic depended on the circularity of its own definitions and premises (verba) to arrive at conclusions about external things (rerum).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This circular verbal reasoning created confusion out of what was otherwise clear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Authority-based testimony transmits belief, not the cognitive contact with things themselves that Aristotle's Posterior Analytics requires for episteme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sanches's 'quod nihil scitur' demonstrates that genuine knowledge requires direct, unmediated acquaintance with particulars, which deference to Aristotle structurally precludes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When the grounds for a claim are the prestige of the claimant rather than causal or evidential connection to the fact, the justificatory chain is severed at its epistemic root.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's analysis in 'On Certainty' shows that inherited propositions function as hinges, not knowledge-claims, revealing that scholastic authority operates outside the space of genuine justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A belief formed through deference to Aristotelian texts cannot survive Agrippa's trilemma: it either regresses infinitely, circles back through the same authorities, or bottoms out in unjustified assertion.
      ?

      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.