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 G.E. Moore's proof from ordinary language demonstrates that the existence of hands — paradigm external objects — is known with greater certainty than any philosophical premise used to doubt them.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Certainty about language use doesn't guarantee certainty about what language refers to in external reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Skeptical premises (like brain-in-vat scenarios) are logically coherent even if psychologically implausible or linguistically awkward.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moore assumes ordinary language reflects metaphysical truth, but language conventions can be reliable guides without proving external objects exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Our direct sensory experience of hands is more immediate and reliable than abstract philosophical arguments about skepticism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rejecting the certainty of hands requires denying the very linguistic competence philosophers rely on to construct doubt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We can meaningfully doubt philosophical premises, but doubting hands requires abandoning the framework of rational discourse itself.
      ?

      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.