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
    Systematic correctability assumes we can always identify ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A probative system need not be relativistically fundamental to be suitable for determining spacetime structure, only reliable and systematically correctable.

    Systematic correctability assumes we can always identify errors from within the system; but non-fundamental frameworks may be systematically blind to structural limitations of their own categories.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Non-fundamental(describing systems that work on the surface but may have shaky foundations)
    Something that isn't based on basic, basic underlying principles—it's built on top of other things that might themselves need explanation.
    Structural limitations(as used in philosophy of science)
    Weaknesses or blind spots built into the basic design or foundation of a system that can't be fixed from within that system.
    Systematic correctability(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge))
    The idea that a system (like a science or belief framework) can fix its own mistakes by using its own rules and methods.
    Systematically blind(as used in epistemology)
    Unable to see or recognize a problem because the system's own structure prevents it from noticing that particular kind of issue.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    categories(Kantian epistemology)
    The most basic concepts of objects in general, which are unavoidably employed whenever we think about anything whatsoever
    framework(Carnap's philosophy of language and logic)
    A structured system of rules or language that must be in place for rational discourse to be possible.

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    A probative system need not be relativistically fundamental to be suitable for d...

    Related

    A probative system need not be relativistically fundamental to be suitable for d...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Open for perspectives

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

    Share the first perspective