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 negation of any of a person's beliefs counts as a par... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The negation of any of a person's beliefs counts as a paradox under Sainsbury's definition

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A person with jointly inconsistent beliefs can take the negation of any one belief as a conclusion and treat the remaining beliefs as premises
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This 'jumble argument' is valid
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The premises are beliefs the person accepts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sainsbury's definition requires that the unacceptability of the conclusion be apparent, not merely logical—trivially derivable negations lack this epistemic appearance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'jumble argument' produces conclusions that are immediately recognizable as artifacts of inconsistency, not genuinely puzzling conclusions that resist easy diagnosis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Paradoxes on Sainsbury's account must resist obvious dissolution; inconsistency-driven negations are dissolved the moment the underlying inconsistency is identified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine and Ullian distinguish between genuine paradoxes and mere formal contradictions—the former require that all premises appear independently plausible, not merely believed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the jumble argument, the premises are not independently plausible but are jointly believed, and collective belief does not entail apparent individual acceptability of each premise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the jumble argument fails to satisfy the 'apparently acceptable premises' condition in Sainsbury's definition, since apparent acceptability requires more than doxastic commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Skepticism

    Related

    A person with jointly inconsistent beliefs can take the negation of any one beli...In the jumble argument, the premises are not independently plausible but are joi...Paradoxes on Sainsbury's account must resist obvious dissolution; inconsistency-...Quine and Ullian distinguish between genuine paradoxes and mere formal contradic...
    +7 moreShow less
    Sainsbury defines a paradox as an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by ...Sainsbury's definition requires that the unacceptability of the conclusion be ap...The 'jumble argument' produces conclusions that are immediately recognizable as ...The conclusion (the negation of a belief) is something the person rejectsThe premises are beliefs the person acceptsTherefore the jumble argument fails to satisfy the 'apparently acceptable premis...This 'jumble argument' is valid

    Similar

    Under Sainsbury's definition, the negation of any belief would count a...94%A definition of paradox that entails the negation of any belief is a p...92%R. M. Sainsbury's definition of a paradox should be rejected85%Sainsbury defines a paradox as an apparently unacceptable conclusion d...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemic-paradoxes
    View source passageHide passage
    If you know that your beliefs are jointly inconsistent but deny this makes for a giant paradox, then you should reject R. M. Sainsbury’s definition of a paradox as “an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises” (1995, 1). Take the negation of any of your beliefs as a conclusion and your remaining beliefs as the premises. You should judge this jumble argument as valid, and as having premises that you accept, and yet as having
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit