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 Devitt's 'bruteness' strategy merely relocates the explanatory burden rather than dissolving it, leaving primitive resemblance unexplained.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All explanatory chains must terminate somewhere; primitives are necessary endpoints, not explanatory failures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Resemblance may be too fundamental to be further analyzed without circularity—bruteness reflects metaphysical reality, not inadequacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Devitt's strategy succeeds if it avoids infinite regress better than rival theories, regardless of residual primitives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Declaring resemblance primitive merely asserts ignorance rather than explaining it; the burden remains unmet.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If bruteness stops explanation, we should reject any theory relying on it as incomplete rather than final.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Other frameworks (like trope nominalism) explain resemblance through constituent properties, avoiding primitives altogether.
      ?

      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.