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
    A causal account of why X exists can be converted into a ... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A causal account of why X exists can be converted into a scientific definition of what X is.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The nominal definition of eclipse is 'darkening of the moon at opposition'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Investigation reveals that lunar eclipse is caused by the interposition of the earth between the sun and the moon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This causal finding yields the scientific definition: 'darkening of the moon at opposition due to the interposition of the earth between the sun and the moon'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Many natural kinds have multiple sufficient causes, so no single causal account can uniquely define what the kind is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle himself acknowledges in Meteorologica that some phenomena (e.g., thunder) admit of several distinct causal explanations without privileging one as definitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A definition that varies depending on which sufficient cause is operative fails the Aristotelian requirement that definitions pick out essential, not contingent, features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's causal-historical theory of reference establishes that the reference of natural kind terms is fixed by initial baptism, not by causal-explanatory descriptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reference is fixed independently of causal accounts, then discovering a cause tells us something about the kind but does not constitute or exhaust what the kind essentially is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The convertibility thesis therefore conflates the epistemic route to knowledge of a kind with the metaphysical constitution of that kind's essence.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    A definition that varies depending on which sufficient cause is operative fails ...Aristotle himself acknowledges in Meteorologica that some phenomena (e.g., thund...If reference is fixed independently of causal accounts, then discovering a cause...Investigation reveals that lunar eclipse is caused by the interposition of the e...
    +5 moreShow less
    Kripke's causal-historical theory of reference establishes that the reference of...Many natural kinds have multiple sufficient causes, so no single causal account ...The convertibility thesis therefore conflates the epistemic route to knowledge o...The nominal definition of eclipse is 'darkening of the moon at opposition'.This causal finding yields the scientific definition: 'darkening of the moon at ...

    Similar

    To determine what X is scientifically, one must first investigate whet...83%Physical science seeks causal explanations of phenomena.83%An answer to why X is can be converted into a scientific definition of...82%This is not a reductive analysis of causation but a clarification of w...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Aristotle discusses there four types of scientific question or investigation, “whether X is”, “what X is”, “whether X is Y”, and “why X is Y”. His main claim is that the investigation what X is stands to the investigation whether X is, as the investigation why X is Y stands to the investigation whether X is Y. So in order to determine what X is, we must first investigate whether X is, and then, if the answer is yes, investigate why X is. An answer to why X is can be converted into a scientific a
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit