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 There are no strict, purely psychological laws of the form 'M1 & M2 → M3'

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Physical events causally impact on mental events (the interaction principle)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If physical events causally impact on mental events, then the mental domain is 'open'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any laws in which mental predicates figure must take into account the openness of the mental domain to physical causation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mental states are individuated by their normative rational relations, not by causal-nomological regularities (Davidson, 'Mental Events', 1970).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norms of rationality governing belief-desire-action inference are constitutive of mentality, not empirical generalizations subject to strict exceptionless formulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any purely psychological generalization can always be defeated by irrational responses, making strict ceteris-paribus-free psychological laws impossible in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Propositional attitude ascription is holistic: the correct assignment of any one mental state depends on the assignment of indefinitely many others (the principle of charity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Holistic interdependence of mental content entails that no finite conjunction of mental antecedents M1 & M2 can close off all content-relevant background conditions needed to guarantee M3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This holism-based incompleteness is internal to the mental domain itself, not merely a result of external physical intervention, and thus survives the objection that openness is only causal.
      ?

      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.