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 rationality of science can be defended against sociological misrepresentations

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between evidential and non-evidential considerations is itself theory-laden, as Duhem-Quine underdetermination shows evidence never compels unique theory choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When evidence underdetermines theory choice, non-epistemic values necessarily fill the rational gap, making 'sociological' factors constitutive of rationality rather than distortions of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kuhn's normal science demonstrates that scientists are persuaded by paradigm-conformity and disciplinary authority, not raw evidence, during periods constituting most scientific practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the actual historical mechanism of scientific persuasion is paradigmatic socialization rather than pure evidential reasoning, then 'rationality' as described is a post-hoc reconstruction, not a causal account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Scientists are persuaded by what they regard as the best evidence or argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evidence and argument are the appropriate focus for understanding scientific knowledge production
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principled distinction between evidential and non-evidential considerations can be drawn
      ?

      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.