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 Descartes' reciprocity of transfer thesis underdetermines the outcome of bodily collisions and the capacity to apply and make predictions from the Cartesian collision rules.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' reciprocity of transfer thesis holds that motion is determined solely by reference to the contiguous neighborhood of each individual body.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determining which collision rule applies requires knowing whether two bodies are approaching one another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Whether two bodies are approaching one another cannot be determined from the contiguous neighborhood of each body alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz demonstrated in his critique of Cartesian physics that relational motion requires a privileged reference frame, which Descartes' plenum cannot provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a privileged reference frame, the reciprocity thesis generates symmetric descriptions where body A approaches B and B approaches A with equal validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Symmetric descriptions that are equally valid yet yield asymmetric collision outcomes entail underdetermination of which collision rule governs the interaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Newton's argument in the Scholium to the Principia establishes that purely relational motion cannot distinguish absolute acceleration from rest, undermining relational collision predictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes' third law of motion requires directional priority to determine which body 'gives way,' but reciprocity of transfer dissolves the asymmetry needed for directional priority.
      ?

      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.