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
    FBP-ists do not need to explain how humans could know tha... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    FBP-ists do not need to explain how humans could know that Full-Blooded Platonism is true in order to respond to the epistemic argument against platonism

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Demanding that platonists explain how humans could know that Full-Blooded Platonism is true is exactly analogous to demanding that external-world realists explain how humans could know that an external world exists that gives rise to accurate sense perceptions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument against platonism in steps (1)–(6) is a different kind of argument from Cartesian-style skeptical arguments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Responding to the argument in (1)–(6) does not require answering Cartesian-style skeptical challenges
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The analogy between FBP and external-world realism fails because sense perception provides a causal mechanism linking knowers to the external world, while abstract objects are causally inert.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Benacerraf's epistemic challenge specifically targets the absence of any causal-explanatory story for mathematical knowledge, making it structurally disanalogous to Cartesian skepticism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A response to the epistemic argument against platonism must therefore address the causal inertness of abstract objects, not merely deflect to the permissibility of unexplained foundational commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.FBP's claim that all logically consistent mathematical structures exist does not automatically confer warrant on any particular human belief about which structures those are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if FBP dissolves the ontological question, epistemological access to the specific content of mathematical truths remains unexplained, as Hartry Field argues in 'Realism, Mathematics and Modality'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The reliability of human mathematical intuition tracking abstract mathematical facts requires independent justification that the analogy to external-world realism does not supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A response to the epistemic argument against platonism must therefore address th...Benacerraf's epistemic challenge specifically targets the absence of any causal-...Demanding that platonists explain how humans could know that Full-Blooded Platon...Even if FBP dissolves the ontological question, epistemological access to the sp...
    +5 moreShow less
    FBP's claim that all logically consistent mathematical structures exist does not...Responding to the argument in (1)–(6) does not require answering Cartesian-style...The analogy between FBP and external-world realism fails because sense perceptio...The argument against platonism in steps (1)–(6) is a different kind of argument ...The reliability of human mathematical intuition tracking abstract mathematical f...

    Similar

    Demanding that platonists explain how humans could know that Full-Bloo...84%Anti-platonists lack a compelling argument that platonists could not p...84%The epistemological argument against platonism is, at best, controvers...83%Plenitudinous platonism is required for our understanding of any possi...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    One might object here that in order for humans to acquire knowledge of abstract objects in this way, they would first need to know that plenitudinous platonism is true. Linsky & Zalta respond to this by arguing that plenitudinous platonism (or in their lingo, principled platonism) is knowable a priori because it is required for our understanding of any possible scientific theory: it alone is capable of accounting for the mathematics that could be used in empirical science no matter what the
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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