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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Transcendental arguments that show what we must believe have anti-skeptical value even without proving truth

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42