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 regress of unexplained resemblances is no less problematic than the original One Over Many demand for a common property.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Resemblance can be primitive and non-relational, needing no further explanation, unlike universals which demand metaphysical grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A regress of resemblances may be benign (like mathematical infinite series) rather than vicious, unlike the original One Over Many problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Resemblance is observable and baseline; positing hidden universals adds explanatory burden without empirical justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Both regresses demand explanation: why things resemble requires either a common property or an infinite chain of resemblance facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A regress of resemblances offers no explanatory advantage—each resemblance still requires justification, creating the same explanatory burden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a stopping point, neither approach avoids circularity or infinite regress, making them epistemically equivalent failures.
      ?

      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.