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 Stroud is pushed toward the immodest conclusion that it is not possible for us to be mistaken in our belief that mind-independent objects exist.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Conceivability provides the usual kind of evidence for logical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Given Brueckner's transcendental argument, there is no conceivability-based evidence that SK is logically possible given CT.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without such evidence, the position that SK is logically possible given CT is untenable for Stroud.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's transcendental idealism entails that the conditions of possible experience necessarily include the representation of mind-independent objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mind-independent objects are a necessary condition of experience, then denying their existence is not merely false but transcendentally incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Transcendental incoherence is stronger than logical impossibility, blocking even conceivability-based skeptical scenarios from gaining traction against CT.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson's principle of significance holds that meaningful deployment of concepts requires possible experiential grounding that confirms those concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The skeptical hypothesis SK, applied to mind-independent objects, cannot be given meaningful content under Strawson's constraint without presupposing the very objects it doubts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A hypothesis that presupposes what it denies is self-undermining, vindicating Stroud's immodest conclusion on independent grounds beyond Brueckner's conceivability argument.
      ?

      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.