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 powers-based account accommodates determinable inheritance

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Powers are individuated by their manifestations, but two distinct determinables can share identical power-subsets across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If determinable identity cannot be distinguished by power-subsets alone, the subset relation cannot ground determinable inheritance without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Shoemaker's causal theory of properties requires that properties with identical causal profiles are identical, yet determinates and their determinables manifestly differ in generality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A powers-based account collapses the ontological distinction between determinates and determinables by reducing both to overlapping power-sets, eliminating the asymmetric dependence relation that inheritance requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.In having a determinate property with an associated set of powers, an object will thereby have the determinables associated with proper subsets of the determinate's powers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Properties are at least contingently individuated by their associated powers
      ?

      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.