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
    There can be no merely formal answer to the question of w... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There can be no merely formal answer to the question of what conditions on partial belief are necessary and sufficient for full belief.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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.What partial beliefs count as full beliefs cannot merely be a matter of the degree of partial belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.What partial beliefs count as full beliefs must also depend on the type of evidence the partial belief is based on.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A credence threshold of 1 (or sufficiently near 1) constitutes a purely formal, degree-based criterion that is both necessary and sufficient for full belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leitgeb's Stability Theory shows that full belief can be formally defined as credence stable across a set of probabilistically possible worlds, requiring no appeal to evidence type.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal Lockean thresholds, as defended by Foley, successfully reduce full belief to partial belief exceeding a context-sensitive but formally specifiable degree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The evidential basis of a partial belief is already encoded in its probabilistic relations to other credences, making a separate evidence-type condition formally redundant.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A credence threshold of 1 (or sufficiently near 1) constitutes a purely formal, ...Formal Lockean thresholds, as defended by Foley, successfully reduce full belief...Leitgeb's Stability Theory shows that full belief can be formally defined as cre...The evidential basis of a partial belief is already encoded in its probabilistic...
    +2 moreShow less
    What partial beliefs count as full beliefs cannot merely be a matter of the degr...What partial beliefs count as full beliefs must also depend on the type of evide...

    Similar

    What partial beliefs count as full beliefs cannot merely be a matter o...87%What partial beliefs count as full beliefs must also depend on the typ...86%An adequate account of partial belief must be able to distinguish betw...80%Knowledge requires conditions beyond those required for belief.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: formal-belief
    View source passageHide passage
    Buchak (2014) argues that what partial beliefs count as full beliefs cannot merely be a matter of the degree of partial belief, but must also depend on the type of evidence it is based on. According to Buchak, this means there can be no merely formal answer to the question: what conditions on partial belief are necessary and sufficient for full belief? The following example, of a type going back to Thomson (1986), illustrates the point. Your parked car was hit by a bus in the middle of the night
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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