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 Benacerraf's epistemological challenge shows that if abstract objects lack causal power, we cannot have reliable knowledge of them.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some reliable knowledge (like logical truths) requires no causal contact, only rational justification.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Abstract objects may be knowable through structural correspondence with physical systems without direct causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Knowledge requires causal contact between knower and known object to explain reliable belief formation.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without causal explanation for our beliefs, we cannot distinguish reliable knowledge from lucky guessing.
?
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.