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 Eliminative materialists like Churchland argue that 'thinking' as a folk-psychological category may not correspond to any real natural kind.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Even if 'thinking' has no unified neural substrate, it may pick out a real functional property that systematically explains and predicts behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The absence of a single boundary doesn't eliminate a kind—species, weather systems, and diseases lack sharp definitions yet remain scientifically legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Eliminativism conflates 'folk concepts are imprecise' with 'the phenomenon itself doesn't exist,' but imprecision allows conceptual refinement, not elimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Folk psychology uses 'thinking' inconsistently across contexts, suggesting it lacks the unified reference required of natural kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Neuroscience reveals no unified brain mechanism corresponding to folk 'thinking'—only diverse, distributed processes without natural boundaries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical precedent shows folk categories (phlogiston, vital essence) were eliminated when science matured, suggesting 'thinking' may follow suit.
      ?

      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.