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 An argument from false premises cannot constitute scientific knowledge (episteme), which is the telos of Aristotelian demonstration.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Valid deductive inference preserves truth-value; even false premises can generate conclusions useful for prediction, control, and practical application.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Historical science advances through false premises later corrected; phlogiston theory and Ptolemaic astronomy produced genuine predictive knowledge despite falsehood.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates logical validity with epistemic value; an argument's formal structure can contribute to knowledge independently of premise truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Aristotelian episteme requires necessity; false premises yield only contingent conclusions, failing the requirement for universal, unchanging truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Scientific knowledge aims at understanding causes; false premises misidentify causes, producing explanations that cannot ground genuine understanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Demonstration (apodeixis) demands that conclusions follow necessarily from first principles; false premises corrupt this logical chain entirely.
?
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.