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 framework that cannot distinguish necessarily co-extensive properties like 'triangular' and 'trilateral' fails as a prototypical property theory.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A property theory's job is to identify what properties *are*, not to preserve every cognitive or linguistic distinction we make.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim confuses properties themselves with concepts or definitions of properties—different concepts can refer to the same property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many successful scientific frameworks identify distinct phenomena as identical (e.g., water and H₂O) without theoretical failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Property theories should capture conceptual distinctions that are cognitively and linguistically real, even if extensionally identical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A framework that treats 'triangular' and 'trilateral' as indistinguishable cannot explain why we have two distinct concepts for one property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Necessary co-extensionality is compatible with distinct modes of presentation; good theories should preserve this distinction.
      ?

      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.