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 A criterion that fails to apply to a recognized subclass of tokens of a type cannot constitute the defining criterion for membership in that type.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some subtypes may be recognized through family resemblance rather than shared criteria. Defining criteria can apply to the core, excluding periphery.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Recognition may be mistaken or provisional. A criterion's failure to cover assumed members could reveal those members were misclassified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Idealization is legitimate in definition. Mathematical definitions exclude edge cases; this doesn't make them inadequate as defining criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Defining criteria must be necessary conditions: if something satisfies the definition, it must be a member. Exceptions violate this logical requirement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Recognition of subtypes as genuine members is epistemically prior to theory. Ignoring recognized instances abandons empirical adequacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Type membership should track our actual classificatory practices. Criteria excluding acknowledged members diverge from how we use language.
?
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.