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 Fine's work on arbitrary objects shows that semantic values assigned in a model can outrun what the object language can express, creating irreducible metatheoretic commitments.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Semantic values need not denote mind-independent entities; they can be formal constructs definable purely recursively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The expressibility gap Fine identifies may reflect pragmatic limitations rather than genuine metaphysical gaps requiring new objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Arbitrary objects multiply ontology unnecessarily when fictionalist or deflationist approaches to model theory avoid such commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Model theory requires quantification over objects (arbitrary or otherwise) that lack counterparts in object-language syntax.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fine's arbitrary objects solve the problem of reference without commitment to infinite regress or conceptual circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Metatheoretic apparatus inevitably introduces ontological commitments absent from first-order formalism itself.
      ?

      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.