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
    Experiences with any kind of content (including nonconcep... — Carmelics
    Home/Perception
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Experiences with any kind of content (including nonconceptual) can stand in evidential relations to beliefs.

    Perception
    ?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.As long as experiences have contents of any sort, they have truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Having truth conditions is sufficient to stand in entailment and probabilistic relations to beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Evidential relations require the relata to be assessable as correct or incorrect by the same cognitive subject bearing the belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nonconceptual contents, by definition, cannot be reflectively accessed or assessed by a subject who lacks the relevant concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore nonconceptual contents cannot serve as evidence for beliefs, which require conceptual articulation to be rationally weighed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Having truth conditions is necessary but not sufficient for standing in evidential relations; the content must also be inferentially available to the believer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.McDowell's 'Mind and World' demonstrates that only conceptually structured experience can make rational contact with the space of reasons where belief justification occurs.
      ?

      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

    Perception

    Notable Defenders

    Alva NoëcontemporaryNoë 2004
    Alvin GoldmancontemporaryGoldman 2011
    Anil GuptacontemporaryGupta 2006
    contemporaryBrogaard 2013
    Bertrand RussellcontemporaryRussell 1912
    Bertrand Russellcontemporary
    Chris TuckercontemporaryTucker 2010
    David ChalmerscontemporaryChalmers 2003
    David Chalmerscontemporary
    Declan SmithiescontemporarySmithies 2013
    Donald DavidsoncontemporaryDavidson 1987
    Duncan PritchardcontemporaryPritchard 2012
    Earl ConeecontemporaryConee 1988
    Earl ConeecontemporaryConee and Feldman 2004
    Earl ConeecontemporaryConee & Feldman 2004
    Elijah ChudnoffcontemporaryChudnoff & Didomenico 2015
    Ernest SosacontemporarySosa 2007
    Hubert DreyfuscontemporaryDreyfus 2002
    Jack LyonscontemporaryLyons 2005, 2009
    Jack LyonscontemporaryLyons 2009
    James Pryorcontemporary2000
    James PryorcontemporaryPryor 2000
    James PryorcontemporaryPryor 2000
    John BengsoncontemporaryBengson, Grube, & Korman 2011
    John GrecocontemporaryGreco 2000
    John GrecocontemporaryGreco 2000
    John McDowellcontemporaryMcDowell 1982
    John Pollockcontemporary1974, 1986
    John PollockcontemporaryPollock 1986
    John PollockcontemporaryPollock 1986
    Jonathan KvanvigcontemporaryKvanvig 2012; Kvanvig & Riggs 1992
    Jonathan VogelcontemporaryVogel 2000, 2008
    Juan ComesañacontemporaryComesaña 2010
    Keith LehrercontemporaryLehrer & Cohen 1983
    Keith LehrercontemporaryLehrer 1990
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 2003; BonJour 2010
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 1997
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 1980
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 1980
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 1985
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 2003
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 1985
    Laurence BonJourcontemporaryBonJour 1978
    Laurence BonJourcontemporary
    Michael BergmanncontemporaryBergmann 2006
    Michael BergmanncontemporaryBergmann 2004
    Michael Huemercontemporary2007
    Michael HuemercontemporaryHuemer 2007
    Michael HuemercontemporaryHuemer 2013
    Peter MarkiecontemporaryMarkie 2006
    Richard FeldmancontemporaryConee and Feldman 2004
    Richard FeldmancontemporaryConee & Feldman 2004
    Richard FumertoncontemporaryFumerton 1995
    Richard FumertoncontemporaryFumerton 1995, 2001
    Roderick ChisholmcontemporaryChisholm 1977
    Roderick ChisholmcontemporaryChisholm 1966, 1977
    Roderick ChisholmcontemporaryChisholm 1977
    Stewart CohencontemporaryLehrer & Cohen 1983
    Stewart CohencontemporaryCohen 2002
    Susan HaackcontemporaryHaack 1993
    Susanna SiegelcontemporarySiegel 2011; Siegel 2013
    Timothy McGrewcontemporaryMcGrew 2003
    Timothy McGrewcontemporaryMcGrew 2003
    Wayne RiggscontemporaryKvanvig & Riggs 1992
    Wilfrid SellarscontemporarySellars 1956
    Wilfrid SellarscontemporarySellars 1956
    William AlstoncontemporaryAlston 1993
    William AlstoncontemporaryAlston 1988
    William AlstoncontemporaryAlston 1993
    David Humemodern'no ought from is' dictum
    George Berkeleymodern
    George BerkeleymodernBerkeley (1710, 1713)
    George BerkeleymodernBerkeley 1710
    René DescartesmodernDescartes 1641
    René DescartesmodernReferenced for the view that clear and distinct judgments are justified.
    René Descartesmodern
    René Descartesmodern
    Thomas ReidmodernReid (1785)
    Thomas ReidmodernReid 1764, 1785
    Thomas ReidmodernReid (1764, 1785)

    Related

    As long as experiences have contents of any sort, they have truth conditions.Evidential relations require the relata to be assessable as correct or incorrect...Having truth conditions is necessary but not sufficient for standing in evidenti...Having truth conditions is sufficient to stand in entailment and probabilistic r...
    +3 moreShow less
    McDowell's 'Mind and World' demonstrates that only conceptually structured exper...Nonconceptual contents, by definition, cannot be reflectively accessed or assess...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: perception-episprob
    View source passageHide passage
    In defense of (2), experiences have frequently been construed as lacking representational contents altogether (Sellars 1956, Martin 2002, Brewer 2011), or as having nonconceptual contents (Heck 2000, Peacocke 2001).[4] An influential argument (e.g., McDowell 1994, Brewer 1999) holds that without conceptual content, an experience would have to stand outside the “logical space of reasons” and thus cannot justify a belief. This line is perhaps most plausible if the relevant mode of justification
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Therefore nonconceptual contents cannot serve as evidence for beliefs, which req...

    Similar

    Seemings or appearances are distinct from beliefs.77%If seemings were themselves beliefs, the beliefs justified by seemings...76%Having truth conditions is sufficient to stand in entailment and proba...75%A belief system can contain beliefs such as 'Many of my beliefs have t...75%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit