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
    When revised background assumptions undermine the justifi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→An argument is non-transmissive when the subject's doubt about the conclusion rationally requires the subject to adopt new background assumptions on which the premises are no longer justified by the relevant evidence

    When revised background assumptions undermine the justification of the premises, the argument cannot transmit epistemic warrant to the conclusion

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    An argument is non-transmissive when the subject's doubt about the conclusion ra...If a subject doubts (or suppositionally doubts) an argument's conclusion, this d...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Some arguments are incapable of transmitting justification depending o...79%Those background assumptions already imply (3)78%If a supporting premise is sufficient on its own to establish the conc...77%The second argument's major premise depends epistemically on prior kno...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: transmission-justification-warrant
    View source passageHide passage
    In spite of these considerations, a few authors (e.g., Davies 1998, and 2003a, 2004, and 2009, McLaughlin 2000 and Wright 2002, 2003, and 2007) have insisted that we should conceive of epistemic transmissivity in a way that proves very closely related or even identical to the capability of resolving doubt. Whereas some of these authors have eventually conceded that epistemic transmissivity cannot be defined as capability of resolving doubt (e.g., Wright 2011), others have attempted to articulate

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective