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
    Conflating the reality of a representational vehicle with... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Models are real entities because model descriptions exist

    Conflating the reality of a representational vehicle with the reality of what it represents commits a use-mention error that undermines the ontological inference.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The use-mention distinction is fundamental: discussing a map's properties differs categorically from discussing the territory it depicts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating vehicle and content risks invalid inferences: a detailed painting's complexity doesn't entail the scene depicted is equally complex.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ontological claims require precision about what exists: confusing representation with referent leads to spurious conclusions about reality's structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some representational vehicles ARE part of reality whose ontology matters: neurons implementing thoughts have genuine causal powers regardless of content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between use and mention may not cleanly separate vehicle from content: a word's physical form and meaning are inseparable in actual language.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Not all ontological inferences from representation are fallacious: mathematical notation's structure genuinely constrains what can be represented mathematically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Conflating vehicle and content risks invalid inferences: a detailed painting's c...Models are real entities because model descriptions existNot all ontological inferences from representation are fallacious: mathematical ...Ontological claims require precision about what exists: confusing representation...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some representational vehicles ARE part of reality whose ontology matters: neuro...The distinction between use and mention may not cleanly separate vehicle from co...The use-mention distinction is fundamental: discussing a map's properties differ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit