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 is always empirical uncertainty in attributing understanding even to humans.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.First-person access to one's own understanding is epistemically privileged in a way that third-person behavioral observation is not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cartesian indubitability of one's own mental states establishes an asymmetry: I cannot be empirically uncertain that I understand, even if others can be uncertain about me.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This asymmetry means the claim conflates the epistemic situation of the observer with that of the subject, collapsing a crucial distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that understanding is constituted by participation in shared practices, not by private inner states underdetermined by behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If understanding is normatively grounded in community agreement and use, then attributions within that community carry criterial — not merely evidential — weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's behaviorist underdetermination therefore undermines itself: meaning is public by constitution, making behavioral criteria for understanding non-accidentally reliable among competent speakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Attribution of mental states to any system — human or otherwise — is underdetermined by behavioral evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's analysis of language and meaning shows that understanding cannot be read off from observable behavior alone.
      ?

      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.