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 realist commitment is cashed out in structural rather than entity terms, mistaken ontologies of past theories do not constitute refutations of realism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Distinguishing preserved 'structures' from abandoned 'entities' requires independent criteria—unclear without ontological commitment to something.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If structures are abstract patterns, realism about them seems weaker than traditional entity realism and closer to instrumentalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Past theories' structural claims were often wrong too (e.g., caloric fluid's causal role in heat transfer), so structure-ontology immunity is overstated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Past theories often preserved structural relationships even when entity claims proved false (e.g., Newtonian to relativistic gravity).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Structural realism avoids the problem of explaining why false entity ontologies should undermine confidence in scientific method itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If reality's fundamental nature is relational/structural rather than substance-based, then entity errors don't threaten realist claims.
      ?

      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