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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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