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 Zebra* variant instantiates the disjunctive template

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The disjunctive template requires that the subject's justification be wholly constituted by a factive perceptual state, but S's justification for P3 can be partially grounded in background knowledge about zoo practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If S's justification for P3 is not solely constituted by the subjectively indistinguishable perceptual state, then P4's counterfactual dependency fails, and the disjunctive structure collapses into a standard closure failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McDowell's disjunctivist tradition holds that veridical perception and hallucination are not merely subjectively indistinguishable but are fundamentally different epistemic kinds, making the 'subjectively indistinguishable' condition in P2 epistemically irrelevant to justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Zebra* case relies on subjective indistinguishability as the operative condition for justification failure, it presupposes an internalist conception of justification that disjunctivism explicitly rejects, undermining the claim that it instantiates the disjunctive template.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.P3 entails Q3
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.S's justification for believing P3 is constituted by s's seeing that P3, which is subjectively indistinguishable from the state s would be in if R were true (where R is that the animals in the pen are mules cleverly disguised to look like zebras)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.R is incompatible with P3
      ?

      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.