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 Conceptual analysis alone cannot decide between competing analyses of disease because contending parties will be led by differing intuitions to accept different stipulations as reasonable.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reflective equilibrium, as developed by Rawls and applied by Daniels to health, allows intuitions to be revised through coherence with principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When intuitions conflict, systematic theoretical constraints can adjudicate between them without collapsing into mere stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, divergent intuitions signal the need for deeper theoretical work, not the impossibility of conceptual resolution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boorse's biostatistical theory grounds disease concepts in species-typical functioning, providing an objective, non-stipulative standard independent of evaluative intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If at least one competing analysis successfully anchors contested cases to empirical biological norms rather than rival intuitions, then intuition-divergence does not preclude rational adjudication.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Conceptual analysis always involves a stipulative element concerning controversial or borderline cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Different parties will be led by their intuitions to see different stipulations as reasonable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Multiple competing analyses can all be reasonably successful at capturing core cases.
      ?

      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.