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 fact that perception is required to detect a property does not entail that the property itself is constituted by or dependent on perception.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
All our knowledge of properties comes through perception; we cannot meaningfully separate detection from constitution.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Properties manifest only through relational interactions with perceivers; isolation from perception makes them conceptually empty.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Microscopes detect bacteria invisible to unaided perception, yet bacteria existed before microscopes were invented.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A property's detection requires suitable conditions (light, instruments, observers) that needn't constitute what is detected.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing between epistemic access and metaphysical constitution is logically coherent and widely accepted in philosophy.
?
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.