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 Tymoczko and Brueckner are also committed to content compatibilism

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Brueckner explicitly distinguishes his anti-skeptical strategy as targeting the skeptic's own reasoning rather than establishing positive content compatibility claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument that merely exploits the skeptic's self-undermining use of content need not presuppose that BIV-compatible narrow content and wide content are jointly coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A commitment to content compatibilism requires affirming the coherence of both content types together, not merely using wide content attributions dialectically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tymoczko's argument, unlike Warfield's, proceeds from semantic externalism without requiring the compatibility of wide and narrow content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Tymoczko's argument is neutral on the relationship between wide and narrow content, it does not entail content compatibilism as a commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Tymoczko and Brueckner propose anti-skeptical arguments of the same form as Warfield's argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any defender of anti-skeptical arguments of that form is committed to content compatibilism
      ?

      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.