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
    David Armstrong's own account of structural universals ge... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Complex universals — and the complex facts in which they are exemplified — are ultimately grounded in simple facts and cannot be infinitely decomposed

    David Armstrong's own account of structural universals generates infinite regress: methane requires a universal BONDED-TO that is itself structural.

    ?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.Structural universals like BONDED-TO are defined by internal relations between their constituents, requiring those relations to themselves be universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If BONDED-TO is a universal, its instantiation requires some account of what binds its relata, generating a new structural property needing explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Armstrong's theory lacks a principled stopping point: any structural universal can be analyzed into further structural components requiring universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Structural universals need not themselves be structural; BONDED-TO can be a simple, non-decomposable universal relating atomic properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Infinite regress is benign if each level is determinate and explains facts at lower levels, avoiding vicious circularity or explanatory failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The objection conflates having internal structure with requiring structural universals to account for that structure at every level of analysis.
      ?

      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

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Armstrong's theory lacks a principled stopping point: any structural universal c...Complex universals — and the complex facts in which they are exemplified — are u...If BONDED-TO is a universal, its instantiation requires some account of what bin...Infinite regress is benign if each level is determinate and explains facts at lo...
    +3 moreShow less
    Structural universals like BONDED-TO are defined by internal relations between t...Structural universals need not themselves be structural; BONDED-TO can be a simp...The objection conflates having internal structure with requiring structural univ...

    Details

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