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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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