Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If we only ever perceive species, we lose any epistemic ground for claiming species resemble external things at all.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Species themselves are external things; perceiving their relational and causal structures grounds resemblance claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We need not compare perception-independent objects to reality; coherence and predictive success justify resemblance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates 'direct access' with epistemic justification; indirect inference can still constitute valid knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Knowledge requires comparing beliefs to reality; if only species are accessible, we cannot make this comparison.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Resemblance claims require independent access to both relata; we have no direct access to external things themselves.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without epistemic ground for resemblance, we cannot justify inferring external things exist beyond our perceptions.
?
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.