Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A coherentist account of truth-conditions is compatible with a realist ontology if the coherent system is constrained by mind-independent causal inputs.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Causal inputs are themselves only knowable through coherent beliefs, creating circularity in grounding realism via causal constraints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Multiple incompatible coherent systems could equally fit the same causal inputs, undermining claims that coherence captures mind-independent reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The constraint does not establish *correspondence* to how things actually are, only reliable causal responsiveness, leaving coherentism fundamentally non-realist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Causal constraints on coherent systems provide empirical anchoring that prevents radical underdetermination and solipsistic outcomes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mind-independent inputs can causally shape belief systems without requiring direct access to reality itself, preserving both realism and coherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Systems constrained by external causal forces demonstrate tracking of world-states, making truth correspond to stable coherent patterns.
?
How convincing is this?
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