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
    Transcendental arguments that show what we must believe h... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Transcendental arguments that show what we must believe have anti-skeptical value even without proving truth

    Skepticism
    ?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.A transcendental argument can show that certain beliefs are indispensable — we cannot abandon them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These beliefs are invulnerable in the sense that we cannot find them to be false in ourselves or others
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.To find such beliefs false would require giving up believing anything at all
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stroud (1968) argued that transcendental arguments only establish correlations between concepts, not between concepts and mind-independent reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic indispensability of a belief (we cannot give it up) is logically independent from its truth or its anti-skeptical warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A belief we are psychologically compelled to hold may still be false, so its compulsory character provides no genuine refutation of the skeptic's challenge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The skeptic's challenge is specifically about truth and justification, not about which beliefs are cognitively unavoidable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Showing a belief is indispensable concedes the skeptic's framing by abandoning the demand for truth-tracking justification in favor of pragmatic necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' hinges show that hinge commitments being beyond doubt does not entail they constitute knowledge or defeat radical skepticism.
      ?

      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

    Related

    A belief we are psychologically compelled to hold may still be false, so its com...A transcendental argument can show that certain beliefs are indispensable — we c...Epistemic indispensability of a belief (we cannot give it up) is logically indep...Showing a belief is indispensable concedes the skeptic's framing by abandoning t...
    +5 moreShow less
    Stroud (1968) argued that transcendental arguments only establish correlations b...The skeptic's challenge is specifically about truth and justification, not about...These beliefs are invulnerable in the sense that we cannot find them to be false...To find such beliefs false would require giving up believing anything at allWittgenstein's 'On Certainty' hinges show that hinge commitments being beyond do...

    Similar

    A skeptical argument aims to produce reflectively justified belief in ...84%Transcendental arguments can demonstrate that certain beliefs are fund...84%The skeptical argument has at least one false premise and is therefore...84%The BKDA argument, even when sound, has no general skeptical implicati...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: transcendental-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    A third type of modest approach is offered by Stroud himself, where he claims that even a transcendental argument which shows what we must believe can have anti-skeptical value, in showing that these beliefs are indispensable and invulnerable, in the sense that we not only cannot abandon them, but also we cannot find them to be false in ourselves or others, because to so find them would be to give up believing anything at all. However, Stroud allows that this sort of status for the belief in que
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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