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 Carter's argument presupposes a determinate answer to ship identity before evaluating the competing candidates, committing a petitio principii.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Carter may be arguing conditionally: 'IF identity requires continuity of matter, THEN the original ship survives,' avoiding petitio principii.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Evaluating competing candidates necessarily requires background assumptions about what matters for identity—this is not circular but foundational.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The charge of petitio principii requires showing Carter's conclusion appears in his premises; merely having background assumptions is insufficient.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Carter assumes identity has a determinate fact-of-the-matter before examining whether competing candidates (original wood, continuous function) satisfy it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Circular reasoning occurs when one presupposes the conclusion needed to evaluate premises. Carter does exactly this with ship identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A non-circular approach would first establish criteria for identity, then apply them neutrally to competing candidates.
?
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.