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 inductive justification of induction has value as a consistency check on existing beliefs, even if it cannot persuade skeptics or counterinductivists.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A consistency check that assumes the very principle under scrutiny commits the circular fallacy Hume identified, not merely a benign redundancy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic value requires that a check could in principle reveal error; inductive self-validation cannot detect induction's failure without presupposing its success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nelson Goodman's new riddle shows induction admits rival, mutually inconsistent extrapolations equally self-consistent, so internal coherence fails to discriminate valid from invalid inductive schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A consistency check that cannot adjudicate between 'green' and 'grue' projections provides no genuine epistemic gain beyond confirming a scheme is closed under its own rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The inductive justification shows that inductive inferences are reliable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Demonstrating reliability provides added value even when inductive inferences are already accepted as unproblematic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A consistency check on existing beliefs is epistemically valuable.
      ?

      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.