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 Color relativism resolves the conflict between Nonvert's and Invert's color experiences without making either experience non-veridical

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Color relativism entails that 'the tomato is red' and 'the tomato is green' are simultaneously true, violating the law of non-contradiction for determinate color properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If color predicates are indexed to perceivers, they cease to function as genuine properties of objects and collapse into reports about subjective states, making color discourse about the world impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hilary Putnam's semantic externalism establishes that natural kind terms like color words are anchored to mind-independent extensions, not individuated by individual perceptual systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The relativist move merely redescribes the conflict rather than resolving it: Nonvert and Invert still disagree about which property the tomato has when they both sincerely assert 'the tomato is red'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.C.L. Hardin's eliminativist argument shows that surface spectral reflectance properties—not observer-relative facts—are the proper truthmakers for color discourse, making relativist veridical parity illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The tomato is red relative to Nonvert and green relative to Invert (rather than red or green simpliciter)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The tomato looks red-for-Nonvert to Nonvert, so Nonvert's experience is veridical
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The tomato looks red-for-Invert to Invert, so Invert's experience is veridical
      ?

      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.