If the same constitutive game (football) can persist across radically different regulative frameworks, then regulative rules cannot be doing the identity-preserving work formalism needs them to do.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

constitutive rules(Contrasted with regulative rules; central to Suits's analysis of games): The rules that define and constitute a game, such that violating them ends or negates the game rather than merely breaking a norm within it.
formalism(Applied as a critique of both metaphysics and the sciences in Horkheimer's later work): The logical practice of relating facts to concepts in terms of the relation of classes to instances, accomplished by simple deduction, resulting in static universals into which all particulars can be neatly placed
identity-preserving work(used to describe what the statement argues regulative rules cannot do): The job of keeping something the same thing—like what makes football still 'football' even when played under different conditions.
radically different regulative frameworks(the example used to challenge formalism): Completely different sets of rules governing how something is played or conducted—imagine football played with vastly different scoring systems or time limits.

Based on where you are in your exploration