Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The appearance of learning without new data is thus an illusion masking implicit empirical premises that have not been rigorously tested.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Valid logical derivations produce genuinely new conclusions not present in premises, regardless of whether premises depend on prior empirical work.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical truths are not empirical claims—their necessity stems from conceptual relationships, not testable facts about the world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing between 'learning' and 'discovering implications' matters; finding what follows from known axioms constitutes real intellectual progress.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical deduction from axioms cannot generate genuinely new knowledge without assuming unstated empirical facts about how reality instantiates those axioms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Mathematical proofs often rely on hidden assumptions about consistency and completeness that require empirical validation in actual systems.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Claims of pure reasoning frequently smuggle in intuitions derived from prior experience, making them parasitic on unexamined empirical background.
?
How convincing is this?
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.