Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The supporting argument conflates having a complete phenomenal idea of X with having sufficient epistemic access to X to ground necessary truths about it.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Phenomenal access to X constitutes direct epistemic access; denying this requires explaining what further access could mean.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Necessary truths about phenomenal properties ARE grounded in their phenomenal character—they're not separate facts requiring different access.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between 'complete phenomenal idea' and 'sufficient epistemic access' may be conceptually unclear or artificial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Phenomenal ideas provide subjective content, but grounding necessary truths requires objective modal facts independent of experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Complete acquaintance with how something appears differs fundamentally from understanding why it must be that way.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The conflation illegitimately moves from 'I can fully imagine X' to 'I can thereby know X's essential properties.
?
How convincing is this?
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.