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 inference from 'x appears F' to 'there is an object that is F' commits the sense-datum fallacy identified by Chisholm and later Austin himself.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The inference is not from 'appears F' alone but from 'appears F' + background causal and perceptual reliability assumptions, which are legitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Austin himself rejected sense-datum theory entirely; attributing a 'fallacy' to him misrepresents his ordinary language approach to perception.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Appearance-to-object inferences work fine in normal conditions; calling all such inferences fallacious sets an unreasonably high epistemological standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Appearance claims describe subjective experience, not objective properties. Inferring objects possess those properties illicitly shifts categories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The same object can appear F to one observer and not-F to another, so 'appears F' cannot entail 'is F' without additional justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Chisholm showed that sense-datum theory avoids skepticism by treating appearances as evidence rather than guarantees of external facts.
      ?

      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.