The argument from possible insensibility proves too much, since a person can have functioning eyes yet fail to perceive depth, without this entailing that depth perception is a non-visual faculty.
?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.
entailing(as whether one claim necessarily requires another)
Logically requiring something to follow; if A is true, then A entails B means B must also be true.
non-visual(as used in philosophy of perception)
Something that doesn't involve the sense of sight or vision.
proves too much(Applied to Pascal's Wager to show it would equally justify belief in incompatible theistic hypotheses)
A dialectical objection where an argument is shown to be flawed because the same form of reasoning, applied consistently, would justify conclusions that are clearly false or mutually contradictory.