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 Some sources of evidence are merely derivative, deriving their justificatory power from a more basic source.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Testimony constitutes an irreducible, non-inferential source of justification, as argued by C.A.J. Coady's anti-reductionism about testimony.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If testimony generates justification independently of perceptual confirmation, the derivative/basic hierarchy collapses for at least one purportedly derivative source.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Coherentism (BonJour, early; Quine) holds that justification arises from mutual support among beliefs, not from foundational basic sources.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If no source is epistemically prior to all others, then the category of 'merely derivative' evidence presupposes a foundationalist architecture that coherentism denies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Contingent sources of evidence provide justification only because some basic source justifies their use.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Testimony is a plausible example of a derivative source whose justificatory standing depends on a more basic source such as perception.
?
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.