Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The nihilist bears the same evidential burden as the skeptic: undercutting defeaters must themselves be positively established.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Undercutting defeaters can be negative/conditional claims (if X, then not-justified) that don't require independent positive evidence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Nihilism denies meaning entirely while skepticism merely suspends judgment; these require fundamentally different burdens of proof.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Showing existing justifications fail doesn't require positive proof—logical analysis of flawed arguments suffices as defeaters.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Undercutting defeaters logically function as positive claims about knowledge or justification that require their own rational support.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Asymmetric burdens of proof allow unfalsifiable positions to avoid scrutiny, undermining rational discourse standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Both nihilism and skepticism deny established beliefs, so parity demands equal evidential rigor for both denial strategies.
?
How convincing is this?
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.