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 What counts as 'nature's purpose' is not empirically discoverable but is smuggled in via normative assumptions (Hume, Treatise, III.i.1).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Biological function is empirically discoverable through causal role in survival and reproduction without smuggling in values.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between 'discovering purpose' and 'imposing values' may itself rely on unclear boundaries, not invalidate functional analysis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if purpose-language involves norms, this doesn't mean all such claims are equally unfounded or lack empirical grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Empirical observation cannot distinguish between natural regularities and prescriptive purposes without additional interpretive frameworks.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Historical shifts in what counts as 'nature's purpose' correlate with changing moral and social values, not new empirical discoveries.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Any claim that X has purpose Y requires evaluating Y as good/desirable, which is a normative judgment beyond observation.
?
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.