Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If A and B are incommensurable rather than indifferent, the inference in P2 is a category error that smuggles in transitivity violations artificially.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Incommensurability need not prevent rational preference ordering; we compare apples and oranges practically without metric reduction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
P2's inference may avoid category error by operating at a higher abstraction level, not claiming metric equivalence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Calling something a category error requires showing the logical operation is *undefined*, not merely difficult or unusual.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Incommensurable values operate under different measurement criteria, making direct comparison logically incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Treating incommensurables as transitively comparable presupposes a common metric that doesn't exist between them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Category errors occur precisely when logical operations assume conditions that violate the nature of the entities involved.
?
How convincing is this?
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.