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 Unshakable conviction in the face of serious, well-thought-out challenges is the criterion for truth

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce's pragmatist tradition demonstrates that 'unshakable conviction' is a psychological state, not an epistemic one—indubitability tracks cognitive limits, not truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical science shows propositions once held with Cartesian-grade certainty (e.g., Euclidean space as necessary) were later overturned by superior theoretical frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the psychological irresistibility of a belief under current methods of doubt cannot constitute a criterion for truth, only for current epistemic inaccessibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' establishes that our most foundational convictions function as hinges—they are not doubted, but this is a structural feature of language-games, not evidence of truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If unshakeability derives from a proposition's role in constituting the very framework within which doubt operates, then the criterion conflates logical grammar with metaphysical correspondence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mere stubbornness can produce convictions that are not doubted
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relevant criterion is not simply that a proposition is not doubted, nor that it resists momentary doubt
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition counts as true only if its content is so clearly perceived that the will's affirmation cannot be shaken even by the systematic and sustained doubts of the Meditations
      ?

      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