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 direct acquaintance with a singular is possible, the species is an unnecessary ontological posit violating parsimony.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Direct acquaintance with particulars doesn't explain why multiple distinct things share properties; resemblance requires a basis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Parsimony applies to explanatory posits, not ontological categories; species explain pattern-identity that particulars alone cannot.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument conflates epistemological access with ontological commitment; knowing singulars directly doesn't entail species don't exist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Direct acquaintance provides complete epistemic access to particulars without requiring abstract intermediaries like species.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Parsimony favors ontologies with fewer kinds of entities; if particulars alone suffice, species become explanatorily redundant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Resemblance relations between singulars can ground classification without positing shared universal essences.
?
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.