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
    The argument being criticized generalizes to all senses (... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A conclusion generalized to all the senses based solely on one sense is invalid

    The argument being criticized generalizes to all senses ('nothing can ever be present...') but is based solely on one sense

    PerceptionSkepticism
    ?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.

    Topics

    SkepticismPerception

    Related

    A conclusion generalized to all the senses based solely on one sense is invalidSome senses do not represent physical objects in the same way that all others doTouch presents qualities of objects to the mind more directly than vision does

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A conclusion generalized to all the senses based solely on one sense i...74%Transcendental arguments can only establish how things must appear to ...74%The critique that logical argument can 'prove anything' does not under...74%The BKDA argument, even when sound, has no general skeptical implicati...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reid
    View source passageHide passage
    Reid responds to this argument with several objections. First, Reid's analysis of each of the senses in Inquiry convince him that some senses do not represent physical objects in the same way that all the others do. Touch (IHM ch. 6), for example, presents qualities of objects to the mind in ways more direct than does vision (IHM ch. 7), resulting in what has been referred to as Reid's hybrid theory of perception. A conclusion generalized to all the senses (“nothing can ever be present...”) but

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

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

    Share the first perspective