Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A theory of sound properties that contradicts the phenomenological structure of auditory experience bears a significant explanatory burden.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Phenomenology is epistemically unreliable; vision, proprioception, and taste all contradict naive phenomenology once scientifically examined.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Explanatory burden should track theoretical simplicity and empirical adequacy, not correspondence to subjective experience structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates psychological accessibility with metaphysical truth, treating what seems obvious as what must be ontologically real.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Auditory experience has intrinsic phenomenological structure (pitch, timbre, spatial location) that any adequate theory must account for.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Theories contradicting phenomenology require explaining away widespread, consistent human perceptual testimony without independent justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Sound properties theories grounded in experience face lower explanatory burdens than those requiring radical revision of what we directly perceive.
?
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.