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
    They assumed these hypothetical conclusions were naturall... — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Scholastics generally did not transform hypothetical conclusions into specific knowledge about the physical world

    They assumed these hypothetical conclusions were naturally impossible but that God could produce them supernaturally

    Divine AttributesTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Divine AttributesTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Scholastics generally did not transform hypothetical conclusions into specific k...With a few exceptions involving problems of motion, the scholastics made no mean...

    Similar

    The conclusions of Henry's arguments actually undermine the possibilit...80%Scholastics generally did not transform hypothetical conclusions into ...78%Without such evidence, the position that SK is logically possible give...78%Any theory that rules out what is genuinely possible must be mistaken.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: thought-experiment
    View source passageHide passage
    The practice of thought experiments is not an invention of philosophy and modern science. On the other hand, the view that the Pre-Socratics “invented thought experimentation as a cognitive procedure and practiced it with great dedication and versatility” (Rescher 2005, p. 2) might be a stretch. With such a claim one risks underestimating the entanglement of concepts and corresponding reality. It is probably much more correct to say something like the following: “There is no ancient Greek term c

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective