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 Anti-platonists cannot claim that 'that'-clauses refer to sentence types.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sentence types can be construed nominalistically as equivalence classes of physical token inscriptions, requiring no platonic commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hartry Field's fictionalism and Geoffrey Hellman's modal structuralism show anti-platonists can accept type-talk via paraphrase strategies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'that'-clauses refer to sentence types reconceived nominalistically, the anti-platonist incurs no ontological debt to abstract objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'sentence types are abstract objects' to 'anti-platonists cannot use sentence types' commits the fallacy of begging the question against nominalist reductions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wilfrid Sellars and later Lynne Rudder Baker argue sentence types can be grounded in linguistic practices and dispositions without positing mind-independent abstracta.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Sentence types are abstract objects
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Anti-platonists reject abstract objects.
      ?

      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.