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's transcendental argument can at best establish a version of the causal theory in which 'independent' is read in a transcendentally ideal sense, not a fully mind-independent realist sense.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Stroud's 1968 critique of transcendental arguments has not been answered by the argument Stroud now advances with Brueckner's assistance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The term 'independent' in the argument's conclusion must be read in a transcendentally ideal sense — one in which the nature of physical objects is determined by our best scientific theories and sensory experiences can be in error about those objects.
      ?

      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 'mind-independence' can only be coherently established relative to our constitutive epistemic frameworks, not absolutely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Stroud's own 1977 argument concedes that transcendental arguments yield conclusions about how we must represent the world, not about world-as-it-is-in-itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any causal theory whose 'independence' claim outstrips transcendental idealist constraints collapses into the very Cartesian skepticism Stroud's argument was designed to refute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's internal realism demonstrates that object-independence is always indexed to a conceptual scheme, making fully mind-independent realism semantically unstable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'independent' in the causal theory's conclusion requires scheme-transcendent reference, no transcendental argument—including Stroud's—can supply the verification conditions for that claim.
      ?

      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.