Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Platonist appeals to rational intuition (à la Gödel) lack any principled account of why intuition reliably tracks mind-independent abstract reality.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Sensory perception has evolutionary explanation for reliability; abstract mathematical intuition lacks analogous naturalistic selection pressure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Disagreement among mathematicians about foundational axioms (continuum hypothesis, large cardinals) suggests intuition doesn't reliably track determinate facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Unless platonists explain the mechanism linking human minds to abstract objects, the theory remains epistemically idle—compatible with any intuitive output.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Empirical reliabilism about perception lacks principled accounts of why sensory mechanisms track physical reality, yet we accept perceptual knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical intuitions show convergence across cultures and centuries without causal contact, suggesting non-arbitrary alignment with abstract truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The demand for a causal-mechanical explanation of intuitive access may smuggle in physicalist assumptions that beg the question against platonism.
?
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.