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 claim conflates Strong Evidentialism with Clifford's strict formulation, ignoring evidentialist positions that allow belief under genuine evidential symmetry.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.True evidential symmetry rarely occurs in practice; apparent balance usually reflects incomplete evidence-gathering or hidden asymmetries we haven't yet identified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If evidentialism permits belief under symmetry, it must specify non-evidential criteria for choosing between options, which risks abandoning evidentialism's foundational constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Clifford's formulation targets the core evidentialism concern: belief requires adequate justification, not merely permission. Weaker versions may not qualify as genuinely evidentialist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Clifford's formulation requires evidence proportional to the claim's significance, but other evidentialists permit suspension or belief when evidence genuinely balances both sides.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Genuine evidential symmetry is epistemically possible; when P and not-P have equal support, some evidentialist frameworks allow rational belief without violating evidentialism's core commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating Clifford's strict position with all evidentialism strawmans moderate evidentialist views that accept pragmatic or practical reasons as rational defeaters.
      ?

      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.