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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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