Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Argument B commits a mistake analogous to the one diagnosed in a prior argument, warranting endorsement of color relativism
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The analogy between Argument B and the prior argument fails if color predicates track mind-independent reflectance properties, as Hilbert and Byrne argue.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If color realism is true, relativizing color predicates to perceivers misidentifies the semantic content rather than correcting it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Color relativism generates unacceptable semantic consequences: two perceivers asserting 'the tomato is red' would never genuinely disagree, only talk past each other.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Faultless disagreement accounts, as Lasersohn notes, require a standard of correctness that pure relativism about color cannot supply without collapsing into subjectivism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A prior argument was shown to commit a mistake by failing to relativize a predicate
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Argument B similarly treats color predicates as absolute rather than relative to perceivers
?
How convincing is this?
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.