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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The existence of matter cannot be inferred from the prima facie existence of sensa

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.It is erroneous to believe that matter, as the presumed outside cause of a sensum, has the same qualities as a sensum
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference from sensa to matter assumes matter shares the qualities of sensa, which is unwarranted
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Any inference from sensa to matter requires a causal principle connecting subjective experience to external objects, but such principles are themselves derived from sensory experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume demonstrated that causal relations are not logically necessary connections but habit-formed expectations, making cross-domain inference from percepts to material causes epistemically unjustified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A circular inference cannot ground ontological conclusions: using sense-experience to validate the causal principle that licenses inference from sensa to matter begs the very question at issue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell's own distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description shows that sensa are directly known, while matter is only hypothetically described as their cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A hypothetical entity posited purely as an explanatory cause inherits no determinate properties from the phenomena it purports to explain, leaving its existence underdetermined by any finite set of sensa.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Berkeley's esse est percipi argument establishes that the concept of an unperceived material substratum is not merely unverified but positively incoherent, removing the target of the inference entirely.
      ?

      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.