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 A false belief like 'Theaetetus flies' refers to real constituents (Theaetetus, flying) combined in a false arrangement, not to nothing.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The arrangement relation itself needs explanation: what makes a 'false arrangement' of real constituents different from mere separate existence of those things?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This view conflates reference with aboutness: even if Theaetetus and flying are constituents of the belief, that doesn't explain how they're combined falsely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-existent arrangements seem to be abstract objects too—so the view doesn't avoid positing non-real entities, only relocates them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.False beliefs have determinate content: we can specify exactly what makes 'Theaetetus flies' false, which requires identifying its specific constituents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Thoughts about non-existent or impossible combinations (like flying humans) are still about real things arranged wrongly, not about nothing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explanation of error requires real elements: if false beliefs involved no constituents, we couldn't explain why one falsehood differs from another.
      ?

      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.