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 Eliminating entities from ontology solely because they produce divergences in a theory commits the instrumentalist fallacy of conflating theoretical breakdown with non-existence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If an entity's only evidence is a theory that breaks down, we lack grounds to assert its existence independently of that theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parsimony favors eliminating posits that don't contribute to successful prediction or explanation—a pragmatic reason, not instrumentalist fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'theory fails' and 'entity doesn't exist' collapses when entities have no characterization outside failed theoretical frameworks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Theoretical divergences often reflect measurement limits or model incompleteness, not evidence that posited entities lack real existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Eliminating entities based on instrumental utility conflates epistemology (what we can know) with ontology (what exists).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.History shows theories revised their formalism while retaining entities (e.g., atoms, genes), suggesting divergences indicate model failure, not entity non-existence.
      ?

      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.