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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Allowing symbolic reference to substitute for compliance collapses Goodman's strict type-token distinction, which was designed precisely to exclude such intensional relations from ontological criteria.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's distinction already accommodates conventional relations; symbolic reference is just another conventional criterion, not a collapse of the distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Type-token identity operates at the level of physical/structural properties; intensional relations operate at different level and don't necessarily undermine extensional criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes symbolic reference lacks determinate criteria, but reference itself can be defined extensionally through causal or conventional regularities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Goodman's type-token distinction requires extensional identity criteria to avoid circular intensional definitions of what counts as the same symbol.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing symbolic reference to substitute for compliance treats abstract intensional properties as ontologically foundational, violating nominalist constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Once intensional relations enter ontological criteria, the distinction collapses because any token could reference any type through interpreted meaning.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42