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
    Each such explanation generates a new instance of the sam... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The Quine-Devitt scientific explanation strategy does not resolve the One Over Many problem for nominalists, but merely relocates it.

    Each such explanation generates a new instance of the same explanatory demand the nominalist was originally trying to satisfy.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Modality & Possibility
    1 linked

    Related

    If a nominalist explains why object a is F by appealing to the fact that a is G ...Scientific explanations of predicative facts follow this pattern: explaining tha...The Quine-Devitt scientific explanation strategy does not resolve the One Over M...

    Similar

    If a nominalist explains why object a is F by appealing to the fact th...76%The Quine-Devitt scientific explanation strategy does not resolve the ...75%The Platonist explanation (P) is uninformative as an explanation of (N...74%The nominalist is unable to account for the common features of certain...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    The Quine-Devitt response to the One Over Many begins with the claim that we can account for the fact that the ball is red, without appealing to the property of redness, by simply using whatever explanation scientists give of this fact. Now, by itself, this explanation will not satisfy advocates of the One Over Many argument. If we explain the fact that the ball is red by pointing out that its surface is structured in some specific way, then advocates of the One Over Many argument will say that

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective