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 evidential basis of a partial belief is already encod... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→There can be no merely formal answer to the question of what conditions on partial belief are necessary and sufficient for full belief.

    The evidential basis of a partial belief is already encoded in its probabilistic relations to other credences, making a separate evidence-type condition formally redundant.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A credence's rational constraints are fully determined by coherence requirements (avoiding Dutch books and dominance violations).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The causal origin of a belief is epistemically inert if it produces the same probabilistic relationships as alternative sources would.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Specifying evidence-type separately requires unmotivated additional structure beyond what probability theory formally requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Two agents with identical credence structures can rationally differ if one's beliefs track reliable evidence and the other's don't.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gettier-style cases show that coherent probability assignments can fail epistemic norms when the belief's evidential pedigree is defective.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Formal redundancy (derivability) doesn't entail explanatory or normative redundancy—evidential genealogy grounds the justification relation itself.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A credence's rational constraints are fully determined by coherence requirements...Formal redundancy (derivability) doesn't entail explanatory or normative redunda...Gettier-style cases show that coherent probability assignments can fail epistemi...Specifying evidence-type separately requires unmotivated additional structure be...
    +3 moreShow less
    The causal origin of a belief is epistemically inert if it produces the same pro...There can be no merely formal answer to the question of what conditions on parti...Two agents with identical credence structures can rationally differ if one's bel...

    Details

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