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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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