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 only potentially true and strict laws in which psychological predicates can figure are of the psychophysical form 'P1 & M1 & M2 → M3'

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fodor's special sciences argument holds that higher-level regularities are irreducible to physical laws yet remain genuinely nomological in their own right.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If multiply realizable mental states can be unified under psychological kinds that abstract over physical heterogeneity, purely psychological laws of the form 'M1 & M2 → M3' need not be undermined by physical intervention any more than biological or economic laws are.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Davidson's demand for physical conditions in strict psychophysical laws proves too much, as it would equally dissolve the lawhood of all special-science generalizations, not just psychological ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strict laws are characterized by their logical form and ceteris paribus-free universality, not by the specific predicate vocabularies they employ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the move to psychophysical form 'P1 & M1 & M2 → M3' genuinely yields strict laws, this presupposes that mental predicates can appear in strict laws, undermining Davidson's own anomalism thesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hempel's theorist dilemma applies here: either the added physical predicates absorb all the nomic work and the mental predicates become explanatorily idle, or the law remains irreducibly psychophysical and still fails Davidson's strictness criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Physical conditions always play some role in plausible psychological generalizations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Purely psychological laws of the form 'M1 & M2 → M3' cannot be strict because physical intervention can always prevent the mental consequent
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Including physical predicates alongside mental predicates is necessary to account for the causal openness of the mental domain
      ?

      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.