Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Determinable predicates like 'colored' are grounded in and fully reducible to determinate properties like 'red' via a priori entailment chains (Jackson 1998).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Determinables like 'colored' seem to have causal efficacy independent of which determinate property grounds them, suggesting irreducible ontological status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The set of possible determinates may be open-ended or context-sensitive, making complete a priori specification of determinate disjuncts impossible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Grue-type predicates show that conceptual reducibility via disjunction doesn't guarantee metaphysically grounded reducibility or explanatory fundamentality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Being colored necessarily requires instantiating some specific color; 'colored' is conceptually analysable into a disjunction of determinate color properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A priori entailment chains (colored→red∨blue∨green...) are transparent to rational reflection and require no empirical investigation to grasp.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If determinables were not reducible to determinates, we'd face infinite regress: determinables would require further grounding beyond their determinates.
?
How convincing is this?
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.