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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Seeking empirical support can clarify which a priori claims are actually true without committing them to being contingent or empirically derived.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mathematical theorems are a priori yet mathematicians verify proofs through multiple methods; testing doesn't necessarily blur conceptual categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The rationalist distinction rests on knowledge *source*, not whether propositions can survive empirical scrutiny; these are independent concerns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A priori truths are knowable through reason alone; empirical testing presupposes they're contingent, collapsing the rational/empirical distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Category errors occur when applying methods from one domain to another; empiricism applied to necessary truths treats them as contingent facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a priori claims need empirical validation, rationalism loses its core claim that some knowledge doesn't depend on sensory experience.
      ?

      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.