Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that P2 commits a genetic fallacy: the causal origin of a belief in perceptual mechanisms is distinct from its epistemic justification.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If perceptual systems were shaped by natural selection for survival, not truth, their causal origin is epistemically relevant to reliability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing origin from justification assumes we can evaluate current evidence independently—but perception is our only access to that evidence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The genetic fallacy label assumes 'origin is irrelevant,' but origin often reveals systematic biases that undermine justification claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A belief's truth-value and justification depend on current evidence, not how the belief originated evolutionarily or causally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We routinely accept beliefs from unreliable sources if they're now supported by good reasons, showing origin ≠ justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Confusing causal history with epistemic status would make all evolved beliefs suspect, yet we trust perception despite its evolutionary origin.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42