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 infallibilist tradition (Descartes, early Wittgenstei... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false — that is, there is fallible knowledge

    The infallibilist tradition (Descartes, early Wittgenstein) holds that 'knowledge' properly applies only when error is logically excluded, so (1) and (2) are jointly inconsistent rather than jointly refuting (3).

    ?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.If knowledge requires certainty, then fallible belief (however justified) fails to constitute knowledge, making infallibilism internally coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes's method of doubt successfully identifies a class of indubitable truths, demonstrating that logical exclusion of error is epistemically achievable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating justified true belief with knowledge conflates epistemically distinct categories; infallibilism preserves this crucial distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.No empirical knowledge about the external world logically excludes error (skeptical scenarios remain conceivable), making infallibilism absurdly skeptical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ordinary usage attributes knowledge to people with justified true beliefs lacking logical certainty, so infallibilism contradicts linguistic practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If only logical certainties count as knowledge, mathematical knowledge becomes vastly restricted, conflicting with mathematical epistemology.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    (1), (2), and (3)(logic and argumentation)
    Numbered statements or propositions referenced earlier in a larger argument (not shown in this excerpt).
    Error is logically excluded(epistemology)
    It's impossible for something to be false or wrong—the claim rules out any possibility of mistake by the rules of logic alone.
    Infallibilism(epistemology (the study of knowledge))
    The philosophical position that knowledge only counts as real knowledge if it's completely certain and impossible to be wrong about.
    Jointly inconsistent(logic)
    Two or more statements cannot all be true at the same time; accepting one means you have to reject the others.
    Jointly refuting(logic)
    Two or more statements proving that a third statement is false by being true together.
    Ludwig Wittgenstein(the philosopher whose critique is referenced)
    An influential 20th-century philosopher who revolutionized thinking about language by claiming that words get their meaning from everyday use, not from representing fixed ideas.
    René Descartes(the philosopher the Cartesian Circle is named after)
    A French philosopher from the 1600s famous for saying 'I think, therefore I am.' He tried to find absolutely certain knowledge by doubting everything he could, and argued that God's existence was needed to guarantee our thinking is reliable.
    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Conflating justified true belief with knowledge conflates epistemically distinct...Descartes's method of doubt successfully identifies a class of indubitable truth...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    If claims (1) and (2) are true, then claim (3) is false — that is, there is fall...
    If knowledge requires certainty, then fallible belief (however justified) fails ...
    +3 moreShow less
    If only logical certainties count as knowledge, mathematical knowledge becomes v...No empirical knowledge about the external world logically excludes error (skepti...Ordinary usage attributes knowledge to people with justified true beliefs lackin...