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
    Benacerraf's epistemological challenge shows that if abst... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Abstract objects posited by Mīmāṃsā linguistic realism do not really exist

    Benacerraf's epistemological challenge shows that if abstract objects lack causal power, we cannot have reliable knowledge of them.

    ?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.Knowledge requires causal contact between knower and known object to explain reliable belief formation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abstract objects cannot causally interact with physical brains, so beliefs about them lack causal explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without causal explanation for our beliefs, we cannot distinguish reliable knowledge from lucky guessing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some reliable knowledge (like logical truths) requires no causal contact, only rational justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal theories of knowledge fail for self-knowledge and mathematical deduction, yet these seem reliably knowable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abstract objects may be knowable through structural correspondence with physical systems without direct causation.
      ?

      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

    Abstract objects cannot causally interact with physical brains, so beliefs about...Abstract objects may be knowable through structural correspondence with physical...Abstract objects posited by Mīmāṃsā linguistic realism do not really existCausal theories of knowledge fail for self-knowledge and mathematical deduction,...
    +3 moreShow less
    Knowledge requires causal contact between knower and known object to explain rel...Some reliable knowledge (like logical truths) requires no causal contact, only r...Without causal explanation for our beliefs, we cannot distinguish reliable knowl...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)