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
    Scientific explanations of evidential consilience may be ... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Scientific explanations of evidential consilience do not necessarily support realism.

    Scientific explanations of evidential consilience may be accepted without the explanations themselves being understood as true.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Scientific explanations of evidential consilience do not necessarily support rea...

    Similar

    Scientific explanations of evidential consilience do not necessarily s...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    91%
    Realism provides a good explanation of consilient evidence from theore...83%
    A principled distinction between evidential and non-evidential conside...79%
    The evidential support or refutation of a hypothesis is relative to wh...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: scientific-realism
    View source passageHide passage
    The argument from corroboration thus runs as follows. The fact that one and the same thing is apparently revealed by distinct modes of detection suggests that it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the supposed target of these revelations did not, in fact, exist. The greater the extent to which detections can be corroborated by different means, the stronger the argument for realism regarding their putative target. The argument here can be viewed as resting on an intuition similar to that un

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective