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
    The limits of human cognition to phenomenal knowledge are... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The limits of human cognition to phenomenal knowledge are not contingent on the current state of scientific knowledge.

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The argument about cognitive limits applies regardless of what science currently knows.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument applies regardless of the specific sense faculties humans currently possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Expanding scientific knowledge or sensory capacity would not overcome the mediated nature of all cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Neuroscience and cognitive science empirically revise which aspects of perception are structural versus contingent artifacts of current biology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If cognitive limits are empirically revisable, they are contingent on the state of scientific knowledge about cognition itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kant's synthetic a priori was partially undermined by non-Euclidean geometry, showing 'necessary' cognitive limits can be historically overthrown.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce's pragmatist epistemology holds that truth is what inquiry converges on in the long run, dissolving fixed phenomenal boundaries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the community of inquiry has no principled terminus, positing permanent cognitive limits presupposes an unverifiable metaphysical claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception2 linked

    Related

    Expanding scientific knowledge or sensory capacity would not overcome the mediat...If cognitive limits are empirically revisable, they are contingent on the state ...If the community of inquiry has no principled terminus, positing permanent cogni...Kant's synthetic a priori was partially undermined by non-Euclidean geometry, sh...
    +4 moreShow less
    Neuroscience and cognitive science empirically revise which aspects of perceptio...Peirce's pragmatist epistemology holds that truth is what inquiry converges on i...

    Similar

    The argument about cognitive limits applies regardless of what science...86%Expanding scientific knowledge or sensory capacity would not overcome ...85%Empirical research delineates the limits of human cognition82%Our current intuitions about mind and matter are not scientifically ca...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill
    View source passageHide passage
    Its bears emphasis that Mill’s argument about the limits of human cognition does not depend on our current state of scientific knowledge—or indeed upon the particular sense faculties we possess. Even if we had extra sense faculties or could come to perceive in new ways, he notes, all knowledge that would still be “merely phaenomenal” (Examination, IX: 8). Cognition, in any sentient creature must be mediated by some method of cognising—and if even if we came to possess new ways of cognizing the w
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The argument about cognitive limits applies regardless of what science currently...
    The argument applies regardless of the specific sense faculties humans currently...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit