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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If individualism about species is correct, it is less plausible that species-kinds play a role in laws of nature

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kind membership under the individualist-compatible account is defined relationally, not intrinsically
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kinds that play a role in laws of nature are typically thought to require intrinsic membership conditions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Laws of nature must support counterfactuals across nomically possible worlds, requiring kind-membership conditions that are stable under variation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under Ghiselin-Hull biological individualism, species are historical lineages whose membership is determined by genealogical-causal relations, not by stable qualitative properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kind-membership conditions grounded solely in contingent historical-causal relations cannot underwrite the cross-world stability that counterfactual-supporting laws require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong and Dretske's nomic necessitation framework requires that natural kinds be defined by intrinsic, repeatable universals that can enter into second-order relations with other universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Individualism about species, as advanced by Ghiselin and Hull, entails that species are particulars rather than universals, making them categorically ineligible to serve as relata in nomic necessitation relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A category of entity that is metaphysically barred from entering nomic necessitation relations cannot play the role of a kind in laws of nature.
      ?

      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