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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Truths of faith and scientific truths are epistemologically distinct for the believing scientist

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scientific conditionals (e.g., 'if naturalism, then no eternal motion') are themselves held unconditionally true by the believing scientist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If both faith-claims and scientific conditionals are held as unconditionally valid within their respective frameworks, the epistemic asymmetry Boethius posits collapses into a symmetry of framework-relative certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aquinas's doctrine of subordinate sciences shows that conditional scientific truths borrow their certainty from higher principles, paralleling how faith truths derive certainty from divine authority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' demonstrates that foundational commitments in any domain—including scientific ones—function as hinge propositions held without evidential justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If scientific 'truths' rest on unjustified hinges (e.g., uniformity of nature) that are no more epistemically grounded than articles of faith, the distinction between conditional and unconditional acceptance is a difference of content, not epistemic kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.To the believing scientist, truths of faith are truths unconditionally
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.To the believing scientist, scientific truths are truths only conditionally
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42