Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Thought experiments never go beyond the empirical premises in a way to which any empiricist would object.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Some thought experiments, like Kripke's Gödel case, generate modal intuitions about necessity that outrun any empirical observation or inductive generalization.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modal knowledge about what is necessarily or essentially true cannot be derived from empirical premises alone without smuggling in rationalist commitments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Norton's empiricist reconstruction of thought experiments systematically fails for cases like Einstein's elevator, where the equivalence principle is not derived from prior experience but constitutes a novel conceptual stipulation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
When a thought experiment's conclusion depends on idealizations that are physically unrealizable, it cannot be reconstructed as an argument from genuinely empirical premises without distorting its epistemic structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Thought experiments are arguments from empirically grounded premises.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Such arguments proceed only by deductive or inductive rules of inference.
?
How convincing is this?
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.