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 Science can explain how we form beliefs without thereby supplying the normative criteria for when those beliefs constitute knowledge.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Evolutionary science reveals that our belief-forming mechanisms were selected for tracking truth; this naturologically grounds normative standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Understanding cognitive reliability conditions IS understanding when beliefs constitute knowledge; the distinction between explanation and norm collapses.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Claiming normativity exists 'outside' science suggests normative epistemology is unfalsifiable and disconnected from how minds actually work.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Descriptive science explains causal mechanisms; normativity requires independent philosophical evaluation of what makes beliefs justified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Brain imaging showing how we form beliefs tells us nothing about whether those beliefs track truth or meet rational standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Is-ought gap: facts about belief formation processes cannot logically entail standards for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion.
?
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.