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 skeptical requirement that one rule out all alternatives entails the KK thesis

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The skeptic's requirement concerns ruling out alternatives to the truth of φ, not alternatives to one's epistemic standing toward φ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P2 conflates object-level alternatives (¬φ) with meta-level alternatives (¬Kφ), smuggling in the KK thesis rather than deriving it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes and Hume demand certainty about the external world, not certainty about one's own cognitive states, showing skepticism need not ascend to meta-knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Timothy Williamson's argument in 'Knowledge and Its Limits' demonstrates that KKφ fails for creatures with margin-of-error constraints, even under strong epistemic requirements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If KK is independently falsifiable by cases of borderline knowledge, its alleged entailment by skeptical requirements would make skepticism self-undermining rather than vindicating KK.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The skeptic requires that to know φ, one must rule out all alternatives to knowing φ
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.One alternative to knowing φ is not knowing φ
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ruling out not knowing φ means knowing that one knows φ, which is KKφ
      ?

      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.