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 Therefore token-perception underdetermines the normative identity of the type, requiring non-perceptual rule-following knowledge à la Wittgenstein.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rule-following knowledge itself requires justification; invoking Wittgenstein's practices merely relocates the grounding problem without solving it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Perceptual abilities may be more informationally rich than the claim acknowledges—statistical patterns across tokens can implicitly encode type norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument conflates epistemic underdetermination with metaphysical underdetermination; perception may underdetermine *knowledge* without underdetermining identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Perceptual access to tokens is finite and context-bound, yet type-identity requires stable normativity across infinite possible instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two perceptually identical tokens can have different normative identities depending on tacit rule-following conventions governing their use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein's private language argument shows that ostensive definition alone cannot ground meaning without embedded rule-following practices.
      ?

      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.