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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that You do know that you have hands, despite being unable to discriminate between having hands and being a brain-in-a-vat.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge requires only the ability to discriminate between a proposition and relevant alternatives, not all alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Being a brain-in-a-vat is not a relevant alternative to having hands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.You can discriminate between having hands and the relevant alternatives (e.g., having stumps, hooks, or prosthetic hands).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's proof establishes that common-sense certainties about the external world serve as the bedrock from which philosophical skepticism must be evaluated, not vice versa.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The epistemic weight of 'I have hands' exceeds the epistemic weight of any skeptical premise that entails its denial, so modus tollens favors retaining the common-sense belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' shows that hinge propositions like 'I have hands' are not subject to doubt within the language-game of empirical inquiry, making skeptical challenges category errors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's sensitivity condition requires only that if P were false, S would not believe P—not that S can rule out every metaphysically possible P-falsifying scenario.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the closest possible worlds where you lack hands, you do not believe you have hands, satisfying the sensitivity condition even without ruling out brain-in-a-vat scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Brain-in-a-vat scenarios are not among the closest possible worlds to actuality, so their epistemic inaccessibility does not defeat knowledge claims grounded in tracking relations.
      ?

      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.