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
    The advocate ends up surrendering the a priori warrant of... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The advocate ends up surrendering the a priori warrant of premise (2), despite appearances to the contrary.

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Burge's 'content-involving' self-knowledge requires no independent empirical investigation to yield authoritative first-person reports.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If self-ascription of mental content is constitutively tied to the content itself, then the epistemic route to premise (2) is not inferential from premise (3) but is rather immediate and non-empirical in character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A priori warrant is undermined only when justification proceeds via empirical inference, not when environmental facts merely constitute the content that is directly self-known.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McKinsey's puzzle assumes that a priori warrant must be environment-independent, but Peacocke's principle of self-knowledge shows that authoritative access can be a priori even when its subject matter is externally individuated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the a priori status of premise (2) derives from its self-verifying character rather than from isolation from external facts, then presupposing premise (3) does not defeat its a priori warrant but merely reveals the scope of what is directly known.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Premise (3) is empirical in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Premise (2) presupposes premise (3).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A claim cannot be warranted purely a priori if it presupposes empirical facts about the world.
      ?

      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

    A claim cannot be warranted purely a priori if it presupposes empirical facts ab...A priori warrant is undermined only when justification proceeds via empirical in...Burge's 'content-involving' self-knowledge requires no independent empirical inv...If self-ascription of mental content is constitutively tied to the content itsel...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the a priori status of premise (2) derives from its self-verifying character ...McKinsey's puzzle assumes that a priori warrant must be environment-independent,...Premise (2) presupposes premise (3).Premise (3) is empirical in nature.

    Similar

    Therefore, warrant for premise 1 requires prior warrant to believe tha...77%If premise (1) of the skeptical argument is true in a given case, then...74%An a priori claim that fails to rest on strong premises cannot be acce...72%In the second argument, the major premise cannot be known to be true u...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: self-knowledge-externalism
    View source passageHide passage
    A different objection to the advocate is that, despite appearances, she ends up surrendering SK after all. This is because (3) is empirical and it is conceded that (2) presupposes (3) (cf. Wright 2000, p. 151–152). And so, it is hard to see how (2) can be warranted purely apriori if it presupposes empirical facts about the world.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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