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 Extensionalist identity conditions for properties — two properties are identical iff they are co-extensional — cannot work as a general criterion.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There are seemingly distinct properties that share the same extension, such as having a heart and having kidneys.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Wildly different properties such as being spherical and weighing 2 kilos could by accident be co-extensive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If two distinct properties can share an extension, then co-extension is insufficient to establish property identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Necessarily co-extensional properties can still be distinct: 'triangular' and 'trilateral' differ in inferential role despite sharing all possible instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Chalmers and Jackson's two-dimensional semantics shows properties have both primary and secondary intensions, making modal profile part of property individuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion that fails in even one possible world fails as a general criterion, and accidental co-extension is nomologically possible in the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Shoemaker's causal theory of properties individuates them by causal powers, so 'renate' and 'cordate' are distinct because they ground different counterfactual dependencies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Armstrong's truthmaker principle requires that distinct causal roles in nature correspond to distinct universals, independent of actual extension.
      ?

      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.