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 We are not justified in believing that we are not victims of a skeptical scenario

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Justification is determined by internal coherence and reliability of belief-forming processes within one's actual epistemic situation, not by comparison to logically possible alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The mere logical possibility of a skeptical scenario does not defeat justification unless there is positive reason to treat that possibility as a live epistemic option.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, absent positive evidence for a skeptical scenario, our ordinary perceptual and inferential practices confer justification on beliefs about the external world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The denial of a skeptical scenario ('I am not a BIV') is a Moorean hinge proposition that constitutes the framework within which epistemic evaluation occurs, not a claim subject to that evaluation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wittgenstein's On Certainty establishes that some propositions function as bedrock certainties that stand fast for us, structuring our language-games rather than requiring independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Applying the standards of ordinary justification to framework-constituting propositions commits a category error that invalidates P5's inference from ignorance to lack of justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is epistemic symmetry between what we take to be the actual case and a skeptical scenario
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we were victims of a skeptical scenario, we would not know that we are victims of a skeptical scenario
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Given epistemic symmetry, even if we are not victims of a skeptical scenario, we do not know that we are not victims of a skeptical scenario
      ?

      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.