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 Accepting that there is no Archimedean vantage point for choosing among conflicting frameworks dissolves the apparent contradiction between the Carnapian and mereological answers.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's own internal/external question distinction presupposes that frameworks have determinate identity conditions that make them genuinely distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If frameworks are sufficiently distinct to yield non-contradictory answers, they must share enough structure to be compared, reinstating a partial Archimedean standpoint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction undermines the clean framework boundaries on which the dissolution of contradiction depends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim that 'no Archimedean point exists' is itself asserted from a purportedly framework-independent standpoint, generating a self-refutation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A relativist who uses cross-framework logic to dissolve contradiction implicitly invokes the neutral metalanguage the position denies is available.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Both the Carnapian and mereological answers are correct relative to their respective conceptual schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is no neutral, framework-independent standpoint from which to adjudicate between conflicting conceptual schemes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If both answers are correct only relative to their own frameworks, then they do not assert the same proposition and thus do not genuinely contradict each other.
      ?

      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.