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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A causal account of why X exists can be converted into a scientific definition of what X is.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42