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
    If Norton's reconstructed arguments require empirical pre... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The objection that Norton's notion of argument is too vague is not the best objection against Norton

    If Norton's reconstructed arguments require empirical premises to do epistemic work, they systematically misrepresent the modal and mathematical thought experiments that constitute his strongest counterexamples.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Epistemic work(in epistemology)
    The job that something does in helping us learn new things or gain knowledge about the world.
    Misrepresent(as used to describe how anthropocentric thinking gets nature wrong)
    To describe or portray something in a way that is inaccurate or gives a false impression of what it actually is.
    Norton(refers to the creator of the theory being discussed)
    John Norton is a philosopher of science who developed a specific theory about how we learn from experience and draw conclusions from evidence.
    Thought experiments(as the tool modern philosophers use differently than Plato did)
    Imaginary scenarios that philosophers create and examine to test ideas or explore what's logically possible, often used to challenge assumptions.
    counterexamples

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (as evidence used to challenge the justified true belief analysis)
    Specific cases or scenarios that prove a general claim or definition wrong by showing an exception to the rule.
    empirical premises(what the statement says the thought experiment cannot be reduced to)
    Starting points for an argument that are based on real observations and actual experience rather than just logical reasoning or imagination.
    modal(in logic and metaphysics)
    Dealing with possibility and necessity—questions about what could be true, what must be true, and what's merely contingent (could go either way).

    Connections

    2 topics

    No other argument is better1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    The objection that Norton's notion of argument is too vague is not the best obje...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective