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 Coordinations with objects give empirical content to implicitly defined concepts, transforming them into full-blooded concepts rather than empty place-holders.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coordination itself requires prior conceptual resources to identify which objects possess the relevant properties, generating a regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Neurath and Quine showed that any coordination between concepts and objects is mediated by further linguistic and theoretical commitments, never by bare contact with things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If coordinations are theory-laden, they cannot serve as the extra-linguistic anchor Schlick requires to distinguish full-blooded concepts from empty placeholders.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no coordination uniquely determines a concept's application to future cases, leaving content indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If coordinations underdetermine application, they cannot transform implicitly defined concepts into determinate, full-blooded concepts as Schlick claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Implicitly defined concepts are only related to other elements of the axiom system until coordinated with extra-linguistic things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Objects coordinated with concepts are distinguished by possession of the properties in terms of which the designating concepts are defined.
      ?

      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.