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 Warfield's use of premise 1 ('I think that water is wet') begs the question against the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Given content externalism, Warfield cannot have a priori knowledge of premise 1 ('I think that water is wet')
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.From a Putnamian point of view, one could not have warrant for the belief 'I think that water is wet' unless one had warrant to believe that one had satisfied the causal constraints on having the concept water
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A brain-in-a-vat would not have satisfied the causal constraints on having the concept water
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On Burge's social externalism, the content of 'I think water is wet' is fixed by communal usage, which a BIV ex hypothesi lacks access to.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Warfield's premise 1 presupposes successful reference to water, but successful reference requires causal-historical grounding a BIV cannot possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus premise 1 smuggles in the very environmental embeddedness that the BIV hypothesis denies, making the anti-skeptical argument circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.McKinsey's paradox shows that combining privileged first-person access with content externalism entails a priori knowledge of contingent environmental facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Warfield's premise 1 is knowable a priori yet its truth requires non-BIV causal history, then its assertion already assumes one inhabits the relevant environment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument whose first premise can only be warrantedly asserted by a non-BIV cannot non-question-beggingly establish that one is not a BIV.
      ?

      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