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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Davidson's own argument in 'Mental Events' moves from causal interaction to strict law instantiation without providing resources to exclude non-physical strict laws.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's exclusion argument assumes causal closure: if mental events cause physical events, only physical laws can explain the effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates Davidson's actual position (anomalous monism permits only physical strict laws) with what his argument logically requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson arguably does exclude non-physical strict laws by endorsing physicalism and denying psychophysical laws are fundamental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's causal argument only establishes that mental events cause physical effects, not that they instantiate physical laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-reductive physicalism permits strict psychophysical laws governing mental-to-mental causation without physical law instantiation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson never explicitly argues why causal efficacy requires events to fall under physical laws rather than autonomous mental laws.
      ?

      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.