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
    Destructive thought experiments can be divided into at le... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Destructive thought experiments can be divided into at least three subtypes.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some destructive thought experiments draw out a contradiction within a theory to refute it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some destructive thought experiments show that a theory conflicts with other beliefs we hold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some destructive thought experiments undermine a central assumption or premise of the thought experiment itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between contradiction-revealing and assumption-undermining thought experiments collapses, since exposing a contradiction just is undermining a foundational assumption.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes shows that theory-refuting thought experiments are always reinterpreted as protecting core assumptions, dissolving the subtype boundary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Daniel Dennett's 'intuition pump' critique entails that all destructive thought experiments operate by the same mechanism: redirecting intuitions rather than through distinct logical operations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If all destruction proceeds via intuition redirection, the threefold typology describes rhetorical surface differences, not genuinely distinct philosophical categories.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    Daniel Dennett's 'intuition pump' critique entails that all destructive thought ...If all destruction proceeds via intuition redirection, the threefold typology de...Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes shows that theory-refuti...Some destructive thought experiments draw out a contradiction within a theory to...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some destructive thought experiments show that a theory conflicts with other bel...Some destructive thought experiments undermine a central assumption or premise o...The distinction between contradiction-revealing and assumption-undermining thoug...

    Similar

    The practice of thought experiments extends beyond Christianity to Isl...78%Ancient Greek philosophers used thought experiments despite lacking a ...76%There is evidence of the practice of thought experiments in the contex...74%These are paradigmatic scientific thought experiments that cannot be p...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: thought-experiment
    View source passageHide passage
    Among destructive thought experiments, the following subtypes can be identified: the simplest of these is to draw out a contradiction in a theory, thereby refuting it. The first part of Galileo’s famous falling bodies example does this. It shows that in Aristotle’s account, a composite body (cannon ball and musket ball attached) would have to fall both faster and slower than the cannon ball alone. A second subtype is constituted by those thought experiments that aim to show that the theory in qu
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit