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
    Self-doubting defeating evidence is potentially more corr... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Self-doubting defeating evidence is potentially more corrosive than typical defeating evidence.

    Skepticism
    ?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.Self-doubting defeating evidence does not provide the means to settle whether the evidential relation is present.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without settling whether the evidential relation is present, the subject cannot determine whether her first-order evidence deserves respect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Typical defeating evidence, by contrast, gives the subject grounds to resolve the status of the first-order evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Typical defeating evidence can generate infinite regress: any defeater can itself be defeated, producing equal or greater epistemic instability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If defeater chains are equally vulnerable to higher-order doubt, self-doubting evidence is not distinctively more corrosive but merely one node in a universal regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Agrippa's trilemma demonstrates that all evidence chains terminate in either circularity, dogmatism, or regress, making self-doubt a structural feature rather than a special case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a reliabilist account (Goldman), what matters for justification is the reliability of the belief-forming process, not the subject's ability to settle evidential relations reflectively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a subject's cognitive faculties are in fact reliable, self-doubting higher-order evidence fails to undermine first-order justification regardless of its unresolvability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The corrosiveness of self-doubt is therefore an artifact of internalist assumptions rather than a general epistemic phenomenon.
      ?

      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

    Agrippa's trilemma demonstrates that all evidence chains terminate in either cir...If a subject's cognitive faculties are in fact reliable, self-doubting higher-or...If defeater chains are equally vulnerable to higher-order doubt, self-doubting e...On a reliabilist account (Goldman), what matters for justification is the reliab...
    +5 moreShow less
    Self-doubting defeating evidence does not provide the means to settle whether th...The corrosiveness of self-doubt is therefore an artifact of internalist assumpti...Typical defeating evidence can generate infinite regress: any defeater can itsel...Typical defeating evidence, by contrast, gives the subject grounds to resolve th...Without settling whether the evidential relation is present, the subject cannot ...

    Similar

    Self-doubting defeating evidence is weaker than typical defeating evid...93%Typical defeating evidence gives the subject reason to believe the evi...87%Self-doubting defeating evidence concerns the subject's knowledge of t...86%Self-doubting defeating evidence does not provide the means to settle ...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemic-self-doubt
    View source passageHide passage
    Christensen argues that the agent-specificity of self-doubting higher-order evidence requires the subject to “bracket” her first-order evidence in a way that other defeating evidence does not. He thinks this means that in no longer using the evidence to draw the conclusion, she will not be able to give her evidence its due (Christensen 2010a: 194–196). In contrast, in the case of the red light and other cases not involving self-doubt, once the redness of the light is added to the evidence, disco
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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