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 higher-order evidence requires the subject ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Self-doubting higher-order evidence requires the subject to bracket her first-order evidence in a way that other defeating evidence does not.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Agent-specific self-doubting higher-order evidence is distinct in kind from other forms of defeating evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bracketing first-order evidence due to self-doubt means the subject can no longer use that evidence to draw conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.All defeating evidence functions by reducing the epistemic weight of prior evidence, making bracketing a matter of degree rather than kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Richard Feldman's work on defeaters shows undercutting defeaters already require suspending judgment on the reliability of one's evidence-gathering process.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If undercutting defeaters already demand suspension of first-order reliance, self-doubt introduces no categorically distinct epistemic operation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Christensen's own conciliationism entails that higher-order evidence simply re-weights priors, not that it mandates a structurally unique bracketing procedure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kelly's total evidence view holds that higher-order and first-order evidence are jointly assessed without privileged separation of self-doubting cases.
      ?

      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

    Agent-specific self-doubting higher-order evidence is distinct in kind from othe...All defeating evidence functions by reducing the epistemic weight of prior evide...Bracketing first-order evidence due to self-doubt means the subject can no longe...Christensen's own conciliationism entails that higher-order evidence simply re-w...
    +3 moreShow less
    If undercutting defeaters already demand suspension of first-order reliance, sel...Kelly's total evidence view holds that higher-order and first-order evidence are...Richard Feldman's work on defeaters shows undercutting defeaters already require...

    Similar

    Self-doubting higher-order defeating evidence gives the subject reason...89%If first-order evidence can override the influence of higher-order evi...88%Agent-specific self-doubting higher-order evidence is distinct in kind...85%In cases where both peers have misjudged first-order evidence, the dis...84%

    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