Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If thought experiments smuggle in hidden empirical assumptions, their conclusions are only as reliable as those unexamined assumptions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
All reasoning depends on some assumptions; this claim provides no principled way to distinguish hidden from legitimate foundational premises.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Thought experiments can isolate logical relationships that hold regardless of empirical details, making hidden assumptions philosophically irrelevant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Reliability depends on argument structure, not assumption transparency; robust conclusions survive even if some premises are quietly assumed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Thought experiments rely on intuitions shaped by empirical experience, making hidden assumptions inevitable and often invisible to creators.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
When unexamined assumptions go unscrutinized, they cannot be tested or defended, making conclusions vulnerable to systematic bias.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical cases (Aristotle's physics, medieval medicine) show thought experiments without empirical grounding produced false conclusions.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42