Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If dependence holds only between particulars, the systematic recurrence of qualitative similarity across substances becomes an unexplained brute fact.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Brute facts are unavoidable in any metaphysical system; universals merely relocate rather than eliminate the need for unexplained fundamentals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Repeated qualitative similarity can be explained by causal laws relating particulars without positing abstract universals as entities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument equivocates 'unexplained' with 'lacking a particular type of explanation'; multiple explanation strategies exist beyond universals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Particulars alone cannot explain why electrons in distant galaxies share identical charge and mass without some unifying principle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If only particular-to-particular relations exist, qualitative regularities require infinite coincidences rather than explanatory grounding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scientific laws presuppose systematic patterns; treating these as brute facts abandons the explanatory project of physics and metaphysics.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42