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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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