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
    There is no prospect of our being able to determine the n... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    There is no prospect of our being able to determine the nature of things

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Our sensations and opinions fail to be consistent deliverers of true reports about the world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our sensations and opinions fail to be consistent deliverers of false reports about the world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The very practice of Pyrrhonist inquiry presupposes reliable cognitive faculties capable of comparing appearances and detecting inconsistency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If our faculties were wholly unreliable, the Pyrrhonist could not coherently identify the contradictions among appearances that motivate suspension of judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Pyrrhonism tacitly concedes a determinate epistemic standard it officially denies, undermining the claim that nature is entirely inaccessible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sellars and later Quine demonstrated that successful predictive science constitutes convergent evidence about mind-independent structural features of reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The no-miracles argument holds that the predictive success of mature scientific theories is best explained by their approximate truth about the nature of things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Approximate truth of theoretical claims about unobservable structures counts as a determinate, if fallible, grasp of nature, directly contradicting the Pyrrhonist conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Perception2 linked

    Related

    Approximate truth of theoretical claims about unobservable structures counts as ...If our faculties were wholly unreliable, the Pyrrhonist could not coherently ide...Our sensations and opinions fail to be consistent deliverers of false reports ab...Our sensations and opinions fail to be consistent deliverers of true reports abo...
    +4 moreShow less
    Sellars and later Quine demonstrated that successful predictive science constitu...The no-miracles argument holds that the predictive success of mature scientific ...The very practice of Pyrrhonist inquiry presupposes reliable cognitive faculties...Therefore, Pyrrhonism tacitly concedes a determinate epistemic standard it offic...

    Similar

    We are not able to determine how things really are (the nature of thin...89%The Humean view holds that we simply cannot tell in advance of inquiry...80%Therefore, humans cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the nature ...78%Mill's naturalism entails that we cannot have any knowledge by intuiti...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pyrrho
    View source passageHide passage
    As for the epistemological interpretation, some scholars have suggested that the manuscripts are in error at this point, and that what the text should say is “on account of the fact that (dia to) neither our sensations nor our opinions tell the truth or lie”. The change is justified on linguistic grounds; it is alleged that the text in the manuscripts as they stand is not acceptable Greek. The considerations for and against this proposal are technical, and debate has yielded no consensus on this
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit