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 Metric geometry is neither true nor false.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine-Duhem holism entails that geometric hypotheses face empirical tribunal collectively with physical laws, not in isolation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If geometry and physics form an indivisible empirical package, then joint geometric-physical claims are truth-apt and can be falsified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the conventionalist severing of geometry from empirical truth-aptness misrepresents how scientific theories actually confront evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Einstein's general relativity empirically distinguishes spacetime geometries via predictions about light deflection and gravitational redshift.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rival metric geometries yield observationally distinct predictions when embedded in a physical theory, then at least one geometry is empirically false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Poincaré's underdetermination argument assumes a fixed Newtonian physics backdrop, but that assumption was itself empirically overturned by 1915.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.We cannot verify which metric geometry is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We cannot empirically determine the metric geometry of space in principle.
      ?

      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.