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 Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction undermines the special epistemic status of a priori cognition by dissolving the boundary between logical and empirical revision.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Quine conflates practical revisability of any belief with the semantic underdetermination of truth conditions; logical truths remain necessarily true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A priori knowledge concerns what we know independent of experience, not what we can never revise—these are distinct epistemic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even if the analytic-synthetic distinction fails, mathematical and logical truths exhibit distinctive formal properties that ground their special status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Quine's holism shows beliefs form interconnected webs where any belief can be revised if empirical evidence demands it, including logical ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logic itself can be rationally revised (as in non-Euclidean geometry), then a priori truths lack the absolute immunity to revision that defines them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No sharp boundary between analytic and synthetic statements means no principled way to protect some beliefs from empirical testing.
      ?

      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.