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 Dismissing conservation as 'irrelevant' reverses the historical direction of argument without explaining why the scientific consensus that motivated epiphenomenalism was mistaken.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The historical motivations for epiphenomenalism may be scientifically outdated; we needn't defend abandoned reasoning to critique its conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reversing direction is valid if new evidence emerges; the claim assumes historical continuity proves anything without examining that evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conservation and epiphenomenalism address different questions; conservation's robustness in physics doesn't entail mind-body causal closure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Scientific consensus historically motivated epiphenomenalism; dismissing conservation without addressing why that consensus failed is intellectually incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reversing an argument's historical direction requires explaining the shift; otherwise, the dismissal appears arbitrary rather than justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conservation principles remain empirically robust in physics; rejecting them demands explicit scientific reasoning, not mere philosophical assertion.
      ?

      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.