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 Platonists and rationalists have not genuinely verified their theories by observation; they have made an induction from rational introspection.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Platonists and rationalists claim verification because they have observed what reason reveals to them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Such 'observation' is actually rational introspection, not sensible observation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
2 perspectives
Reason against 1 of 2
?
1.
Kant demonstrated that pure reason's self-examination generates antinomies, showing rational introspection is not a reliable verification procedure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If rational introspection were genuine observation, disagreeing rationalists could resolve disputes by re-examining the same rational faculty, but persistent disagreement persists.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason against 2 of 2
?
1.
Quine argued in 'Epistemology Naturalized' that any verification divorced from causal contact with the world collapses into circular self-justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Platonists posit abstract objects causally inert to the mind, so introspective 'access' cannot constitute observation in any epistemically robust sense recognized by causal theories of knowledge.
?
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.