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 objection that the poverty of the stimulus argument fails to prove UG is innately known is not a legitimate complaint

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The analogy to astronomy conflates inference to the best explanation with inference to a uniquely innate explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Empiricist accounts like connectionism or statistical learning provide equally viable explanations of the same linguistic data.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When multiple competing hypotheses explain the same phenomena, no single explanation is scientifically privileged without further discriminating evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pullum and Scholz (2002) demonstrated that children receive far richer input than Chomsky's poverty of stimulus argument presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the empirical premise that children lack sufficient input is factually undermined, the inferential gap that UG is supposed to fill does not arise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A scientific argument whose key empirical premise is contested cannot be insulated from that contestation by appeal to the permissibility of non-demonstrative proof.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Astronomy is a science
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Demonstrative proofs are neither possible nor required in science
      ?

      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.