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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Warfield's argument requires only that we know *that* we have wide content thoughts, not *what* makes their content wide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Privileged access to the existence of a thought-type is logically independent of access to the environmental conditions constituting its content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Warfield's a priori self-knowledge claim does not entail that wide content itself is directly accessible, leaving compatibilism unestablished.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McKinsey's paradox shows that combining a priori self-knowledge with content externalism entails a priori knowledge of contingent environmental facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The correct diagnosis is that one of the two premises in his anti-skeptical argument must be rejected rather than reconciled through compatibilism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Warfield claims a priori knowledge of both premises of his anti-skeptical argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Having a priori knowledge of externalist thought contents requires that privileged access is compatible with wide content
      ?

      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