Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The contents of most philosophical intuitions will not be part of the best explanation of our having those intuitions (outside of attitude contexts).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Rationalist accounts (Bealer, BonJour) hold that a priori intuitions are produced by rational insight into conceptual or necessary structures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If rational insight is a genuine epistemic faculty, the content of the intuition—the necessary truth grasped—is constitutively part of its own best explanation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Harman-style inference-to-best-explanation skepticism applies most forcefully to contingent empirical beliefs, not to intuitions whose truth-conditions are necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Some philosophical intuitions track modal truths (e.g., that contradictions are impossible) whose content directly explains why we have them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If intuitions are reliable indicators of necessity, their contents figure in the best causal-explanatory story of our cognitive access to those truths.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
There is equally good reason to apply the reasoning behind [P1] to philosophical intuitions as to other propositions.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42