In practice, to say that a belief refutes its own justification is usually not to say it's inconsistent, but rather, the alternative was.
-
-
-
Replying to @preinfarction
For example, pyrrhonian skepticism: if you buy an argument for it, then you don't buy any arguments for anything. It's a perfectly consistent position once you're there. The position you left, by buying the argument, must have been inconsistent tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic @preinfarction
So "x refutes its own justification" doesn't seem like an argument against x, rather, an argument against the position which the justification assumed - which will usually be an anti-x position, if the pyrrhonian example is typical. So, favourable sign for x.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic @preinfarction
Hard to say if the update has to be favorable for x on the whole, since this seems to be a logical-uncertainty update rather than a Bayesian update.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.