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
    The principles of scientific demonstration cannot themsel... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The principles of scientific demonstration cannot themselves be reached by demonstration.

    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.A demonstration (sullogismos) is a strong form of argument in which conclusions follow necessarily from premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle explicitly denies that the principles of scientific demonstration are reached by demonstration (APo. 72b19–20; 93b16–18).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coherentist epistemology (Neurath, BonJour) holds that beliefs are justified by mutual inferential support, not foundational axioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If scientific principles cohere with and partially justify each other, their epistemic status emerges from a web of demonstrations, not brute intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aristotle's regress argument assumes a linear justificatory structure that coherentism structurally undermines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce's fallibilism holds that even first principles are revisable hypotheses subject to abductive inference and empirical correction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If scientific history shows foundational principles (e.g., Euclidean geometry, absolute simultaneity) being overturned through reasoning, they were never truly non-demonstrative bedrock.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A demonstration (sullogismos) is a strong form of argument in which conclusions ...Aristotle explicitly denies that the principles of scientific demonstration are ...Aristotle's regress argument assumes a linear justificatory structure that coher...Coherentist epistemology (Neurath, BonJour) holds that beliefs are justified by ...
    +3 moreShow less
    If scientific history shows foundational principles (e.g., Euclidean geometry, a...If scientific principles cohere with and partially justify each other, their epi...Peirce's fallibilism holds that even first principles are revisable hypotheses s...

    Similar

    Aristotle explicitly denies that the principles of scientific demonstr...92%A principle of demonstration must be necessary, not merely true.88%A demonstration must have as starting-points principles that are true,...81%Mathematical demonstrations are not causal in the Aristotelian sense, ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: empiricism-ancient-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    Aristotle denies (as we have seen) that the principles of a scientific demonstration are themselves to be reached by way of demonstration (APo. 72b19–20; 93b16–18). But a demonstration (sullogismos) is a strong form of argument, in which conclusions follow necessarily from the premises (APr. 24b18–20). So some weaker form of reasoning could be involved, such as “induction” in our modern sense: a generalization over a collection of particulars. The latter gives rise to the notorious “problem of i
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit