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 posit that is neither necessary for nor verifiable by any possible experience fails the criterion of conventional cognitive validity (pramāṇa) and is thus unreal.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical truths (infinity, abstract sets) are unverifiable by experience yet cognitively valid; the criterion proves too much.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unverifiable posits may be necessary for coherent explanatory systems; necessity can be logical, not just empirical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The criterion itself—defining reality by pramāṇa—is neither necessary for nor verifiable by experience; it's self-refuting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Cognitive validity requires connection to experience; unverifiable posits lack this connection and thus lack epistemic grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reality's nature should be determined by what can be known; unknowable entities are indistinguishable from non-existent ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parsimony demands we reject entities requiring no experiential evidence; their unreality preserves explanatory elegance.
      ?

      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.