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
    Therefore, the claim that such knowledge is argument-free... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Knowledge of God rooted in moral experience does not require a moral argument

    Therefore, the claim that such knowledge is argument-free conflates psychological immediacy with epistemic independence from inference.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Psychological immediacy (feeling direct) differs from epistemic status (being justified without inference).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many immediate experiences feel direct yet depend on prior inference—e.g., perceiving depth uses unconscious calculations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating these categories leads to false claims that introspectively immediate knowledge requires no inferential justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Unconscious inference still constitutes inference; calling something 'argument-free' need not require conscious reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction assumes we can clearly demarcate inference from non-inferential processes—but neuroscience challenges this boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even granting the conflation occurs, some knowledge may genuinely be argument-free and epistemically independent regardless.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Natural Theology1 linkedReligious Experience1 linked

    Related

    Conflating these categories leads to false claims that introspectively immediate...Even granting the conflation occurs, some knowledge may genuinely be argument-fr...Knowledge of God rooted in moral experience does not require a moral argumentMany immediate experiences feel direct yet depend on prior inference—e.g., perce...
    +3 moreShow less
    Psychological immediacy (feeling direct) differs from epistemic status (being ju...The distinction assumes we can clearly demarcate inference from non-inferential ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Unconscious inference still constitutes inference; calling something 'argument-f...