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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Our belief in other minds is not properly warranted, because it rests on a poor argument from analogy.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Our belief in other minds appears to be grounded solely on the observed link between behaviour and mentality in our own case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Extending a single observed instance (oneself) to all others is an inadequate inductive base.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An inference from a single instance is a poor argument from analogy that does not warrant the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's private language argument shows inner mental states cannot be meaningfully grounded in purely first-person ostensive definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mental concepts require public criteria for their very meaning, then inferring others' minds from one's own private case is conceptually incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An inference whose starting point is philosophically illegitimate cannot confer warrant on its conclusion, regardless of how many instances support it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.P.F. Strawson demonstrated that even our self-ascription of mental predicates logically presupposes their third-person ascribability to others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the analogical argument were our epistemic foundation for other minds, self-knowledge of mental states would be prior to and independent of interpersonal criteria, contradicting Strawson's finding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposed warrant that contradicts the logical structure of the very concepts it invokes cannot itself constitute genuine epistemic warrant.
      ?

      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