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 Nahmias and colleagues' 'bypassing' research shows folk incompatibilism tracks agent-causation concerns, not mere conceptual confusion about mechanism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bypassing scenarios may trigger agent-detection heuristics unrelated to genuine metaphysical reasoning about free will and determinism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Folk intuitions about 'real' agency could reflect proto-theories about causation that are themselves confused, not sophisticated metaphysical insight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing mechanistic from agential concerns requires folk grasp of determinism; most participants lack philosophical clarity on this concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Nahmias's vignettes isolate agent-causation intuitions by holding mechanism constant, suggesting folk rejection tracks metaphysical, not mechanistic concerns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Folk judgments distinguish cases with identical physical processes but different agent involvement, indicating sensitivity to causation type, not confusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If incompatibilism merely reflected conceptual confusion, reframing determinism in simpler terms would shift judgments; empirically it doesn't consistently.
      ?

      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.