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 When intuitions conflict, systematic theoretical constraints can adjudicate between them without collapsing into mere stipulation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Which constraints count as 'systematic' and how to weight them against each other are themselves intuitive choices, creating regress.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Theoretical constraints (consistency, explanatory power, parsimony) are objective criteria independent of any single intuition.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.