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 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).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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