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 If deflationary and deep-conflict phenomena belonged to the same psychological kind, the term 'self-deception' would be rendered ambiguous

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Natural kind terms like 'jade' or 'water' have historically unified phenomena later revealed to involve distinct underlying mechanisms without becoming ambiguous.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Productive ambiguity in psychological taxonomy can track a genuine functional unity even when mechanistic accounts diverge significantly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance account shows that terms can legitimately cover heterogeneous cases without sharing a single essential property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'self-deception' picks out a cluster of overlapping features across deflationary and deep-conflict cases, semantic ambiguity does not follow from mechanistic difference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The two accounts describe significantly different psychological states
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A single term covering genuinely distinct kinds produces ambiguity
      ?

      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.