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 A genuinely parsimonious account must not assume the cognitive architecture whose existence is precisely what is at issue in the debate over animal mindreading.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some cognitive architectures are independently established; using them isn't question-begging if they're separately evidenced.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extreme parsimony can exclude true explanations; mindreading might require the very architecture the claim forbids assuming.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates methodological caution with metaphysical constraint; we can provisionally use disputed models while remaining neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Circularity: assuming complex cognition to explain behavior that simpler mechanisms might produce begs the central question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Methodological rigor requires we not presume the disputed architecture; doing so undermines the empirical debate's integrity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parsimony demands explanations use only necessary posits; assuming contested cognitive structures violates this principle.
      ?

      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.