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
    McGinn's closure argument conflates 'currently unexplaine... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Humans will never be able to explain the psychophysical link between mind and brain

    McGinn's closure argument conflates 'currently unexplained' with 'inexplicable in principle', committing a form of the argument from ignorance.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.History shows repeated cases where 'permanently inexplicable' phenomena later became explicable (vitalism, phlogiston, lightning).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without independent criteria for 'inexplicable in principle,' McGinn merely asserts cognitive closure rather than proving it systematically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating epistemic limits (we can't know) with metaphysical limits (it can't be known) requires justification McGinn doesn't provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.McGinn's argument rests on evolutionary constraints on human cognition, not mere current ignorance—a structural, not temporary, limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Analogies to past scientific progress don't establish we can overcome *fundamental* cognitive architecture limits, only previous empirical gaps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge of 'argument from ignorance' mischaracterizes McGinn's claim about cognitive closure as a positive thesis about biological constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consciousness & Mind1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Analogies to past scientific progress don't establish we can overcome *fundament...Conflating epistemic limits (we can't know) with metaphysical limits (it can't b...History shows repeated cases where 'permanently inexplicable' phenomena later be...Humans will never be able to explain the psychophysical link between mind and br...
    +3 moreShow less
    McGinn's argument rests on evolutionary constraints on human cognition, not mere...The charge of 'argument from ignorance' mischaracterizes McGinn's claim about co...Without independent criteria for 'inexplicable in principle,' McGinn merely asse...

    Details

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