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
    The reply that one is justified in believing a propositio... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The reply that one is justified in believing a proposition and justified in believing one's evidence supports that proposition may be acceptable in limited cases

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Skeptical philosophical arguments are too recherché to command revisions in everyday beliefs
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In cases where one's initial assessment of what the first-order evidence supports is actually correct, maintaining that assessment is epistemically fitting
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Higher-order evidence about one's own reliability systematically defeats first-order justification, as Christensen's 'Disagreement' (2010) demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rational agent who learns their evidence-assessment faculties are compromised cannot coherently exempt any particular case from that uncertainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The 'limited cases' qualifier smuggles in an epistemic privilege the agent cannot verify without begging the question at issue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kelly's reflection on peer disagreement shows that treating one's own assessment as correct presupposes the reliability that higher-order doubt places in question.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A rational agent who learns their evidence-assessment faculties are compromised ...Higher-order evidence about one's own reliability systematically defeats first-o...In cases where one's initial assessment of what the first-order evidence support...Kelly's reflection on peer disagreement shows that treating one's own assessment...
    +2 moreShow less
    Skeptical philosophical arguments are too recherché to command revisions in ever...The 'limited cases' qualifier smuggles in an epistemic privilege the agent canno...

    Similar

    The reply that one is justified in believing a proposition and justifi...94%A person can be justified in believing hypothesis H without actually b...87%It is possible to have justification for a proposition without actuall...85%If justification for a proposition does not require an argument, then ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: epistemic-self-doubt
    View source passageHide passage
    The second reply—you are justified in believing F and justified in believing that your evidence supports F—might seem reasonable in some cases, for example if the evidence about one’s evidence comes in the form of skeptical philosophical arguments, which one may think are too recherché to command revisions in our everyday beliefs. But this attitude hardly seems acceptable in general since it would mean never giving ground on a first-order belief when presented with evidence that you may be wrong
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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