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
    A reconstruction that cannot account for how scientists i... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A scientific theory can be reconstructed as a formal axiomatic system (a logic).

    A reconstruction that cannot account for how scientists identify confirming instances fails as a logic of scientific knowledge.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Scientific knowledge requires explaining actual practices; if a logic cannot account for confirmation identification, it's descriptively inadequate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Confirmation is central to scientific method; a logic omitting this is incomplete and cannot guide or reconstruct scientific reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientists demonstrably identify confirming instances consistently; any adequate reconstruction must explain this observable cognitive achievement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A logic of knowledge can be normative rather than descriptive; explaining how scientists actually identify confirmation isn't strictly necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scientists often disagree on confirming instances; this disagreement suggests confirmation-identification isn't a unified logical process to reconstruct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some successful scientific reconstructions (e.g., formal semantics) bracket confirmation details; narrower, specialized logics needn't be comprehensive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A logic of knowledge can be normative rather than descriptive; explaining how sc...A scientific theory can be reconstructed as a formal axiomatic system (a logic).Confirmation is central to scientific method; a logic omitting this is incomplet...Scientific knowledge requires explaining actual practices; if a logic cannot acc...
    +3 moreShow less
    Scientists demonstrably identify confirming instances consistently; any adequate...Scientists often disagree on confirming instances; this disagreement suggests co...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Some successful scientific reconstructions (e.g., formal semantics) bracket conf...