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
    When intuitions conflict, systematic theoretical constrai... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Conceptual analysis alone cannot decide between competing analyses of disease because contending parties will be led by differing intuitions to accept different stipulations as reasonable.

    When intuitions conflict, systematic theoretical constraints can adjudicate between them without collapsing into mere stipulation.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Theoretical constraints (consistency, explanatory power, parsimony) are objective criteria independent of any single intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Arbitrating via systematic principles differs from stipulation because the choice is justified by reasons external to the competing intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mathematics and physics successfully use theoretical elegance to resolve conflicting intuitions about reality without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Which constraints count as 'systematic' and how to weight them against each other are themselves intuitive choices, creating regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theoretical virtues like simplicity and elegance lack consensus definitions and vary across frameworks, making them theory-laden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Systematic adjudication can smuggle in substantive commitments under the guise of formal principles, disguising stipulation rather than avoiding it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedBioethics1 linked

    Related

    Arbitrating via systematic principles differs from stipulation because the choic...Conceptual analysis alone cannot decide between competing analyses of disease be...Mathematics and physics successfully use theoretical elegance to resolve conflic...Systematic adjudication can smuggle in substantive commitments under the guise o...
    +3 moreShow less
    Theoretical constraints (consistency, explanatory power, parsimony) are objectiv...Theoretical virtues like simplicity and elegance lack consensus definitions and ...Which constraints count as 'systematic' and how to weight them against each othe...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit