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 Rationalists should enlist empirical support for the existence of a priori knowledge rather than arguing purely from within rationalist assumptions

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A priori knowledge is defined precisely by its independence from empirical justification, so empirical support cannot constitute its warrant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant's Critique establishes that pure reason has its own internal standards of validation that are not answerable to sensory confirmation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Seeking empirical support for a priori claims commits a category error that undermines the very distinction rationalists are trying to defend.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rationalist methodology, from Descartes through Leibniz, proceeds by internal coherence and self-evidence, not by appeal to shared empiricist premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring rationalists to argue from empiricist common ground presupposes empiricism's epistemic framework as the default, begging the question against rationalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rationalists should start from common ground shared with empiricists
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Empirical support can be marshaled for claims about a priori knowledge
      ?

      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.