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
    Warfield's embrace of this combination thus saddles him w... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Warfield's anti-skeptical argument commits him to content compatibilism

    Warfield's embrace of this combination thus saddles him with implausible armchair knowledge of the external world, not compatibilism.

    ?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.Armchair reasoning alone cannot justify beliefs about external world facts without empirical verification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Warfield's position requires knowing facts about compatibilism's truth without empirical investigation of actual causal processes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This conflates a priori conceptual analysis with synthetic knowledge about how the world actually operates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some metaphysical truths about freedom and causation may be knowable through conceptual analysis, not armchair empiricism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The charge conflates the method (armchair reasoning) with the implausibility, but method doesn't determine truth-value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Warfield's position could be defended as concerning logical compatibility, not empirical facts about the world.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Armchair reasoning alone cannot justify beliefs about external world facts witho...Some metaphysical truths about freedom and causation may be knowable through con...The charge conflates the method (armchair reasoning) with the implausibility, bu...This conflates a priori conceptual analysis with synthetic knowledge about how t...
    +3 moreShow less
    Warfield's anti-skeptical argument commits him to content compatibilismWarfield's position could be defended as concerning logical compatibility, not e...Warfield's position requires knowing facts about compatibilism's truth without e...

    Details

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