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 Epistemic humility in formal ontology, as urged by Penelope Maddy's naturalism, requires distinguishing what is proven from what is structurally suggested by incomplete evidence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical structures sometimes reveal genuine ontological insights that precede empirical confirmation; distinguishing proof risks undercounting knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Maddy's naturalism itself relies on structural features of science (methodology, predictive success) without fully proving their metaphysical grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'proven' and 'structurally suggested' is itself philosophically laden and difficult to apply consistently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical structures often suggest ontological conclusions that lack empirical proof, risking false confidence in unvalidated claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Maddy's naturalism grounds ontology in actual scientific practice, which explicitly acknowledges limitations and revises theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing proof from structural suggestion prevents category errors where mathematical elegance masquerades as metaphysical truth.
      ?

      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.