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 Hyperintensional explanatory connections may exist in the world, not merely in our explanatory practices.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Explanatory asymmetries (e.g., ~~A explained by A) are fully accounted for by cognitive salience and inferential norms, requiring no worldly hyperintensional structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing mind-independent hyperintensional connections violates parsimony: Ockham's razor favors epistemic explanations over inflating ontology beyond extensional facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Fraassen's constructive empiricism establishes that explanatory virtues are pragmatic and interest-relative, not trackers of observer-independent metaphysical structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grounding-theoretic accounts (Rosen, Fine) that posit worldly hyperintensional structure face the Bennett-Wilson objection: grounding relations themselves resist non-circular metaphysical explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the regress of 'what grounds the grounding relation' cannot be stopped without brute posit, then hyperintensional explanatory structure earns no ontological advantage over deflationary alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If the correctness of explanations depends on how the world is, rather than only on what suits our explanatory practices, then explanatory asymmetries reflect worldly structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cases of hyperintensional explanation (e.g., ~~A explained by A but not vice versa) suggest such dependence on how the world is.
      ?

      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.