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 counterexample that presupposes a contested property-in... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Global supervenience fails to entail weak individual supervenience

    A counterexample that presupposes a contested property-individuation scheme does not establish a genuine logical gap between global and weak supervenience.

    ?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.Property individuation schemes determine what counts as distinct properties; disagreement about schemes undermines counterexample clarity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A counterexample's force depends on its premises being uncontested; contested individuation makes the logical gap genuinely unclear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without neutral property criteria, we cannot definitively separate logical from metaphysical claims about supervenience relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Valid counterexamples work regardless of property schemes; scheme-dependence shows the gap exists, not that it's illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claiming contested assumptions invalidate counterexamples sets an unreasonably high bar—all philosophical arguments rely on some framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The relationship between global and weak supervenience is a mathematical fact independent of how we linguistically carve properties.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A counterexample's force depends on its premises being uncontested; contested in...Claiming contested assumptions invalidate counterexamples sets an unreasonably h...Global supervenience fails to entail weak individual supervenienceProperty individuation schemes determine what counts as distinct properties; dis...
    +3 moreShow less
    The relationship between global and weak supervenience is a mathematical fact in...Valid counterexamples work regardless of property schemes; scheme-dependence sho...Without neutral property criteria, we cannot definitively separate logical from ...

    Details

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