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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Implicit definitions are structural definitions whose constituent terms are structurally defined.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Newman's 1928 objection showed that purely structural definitions trivialize physical theories, since any collection of objects satisfies some relational structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If structural definitions are satisfiable by arbitrarily many incompatible interpretations, they fail to uniquely fix the meanings of their constituent terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A definition that leaves its terms referentially indeterminate does not constitute a genuine semantic definition of those terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege demonstrated that logical constants like 'and' and 'not' cannot be implicitly defined by their structural roles without presupposing their meanings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If foundational logical terms resist purely structural definition, then no axiomatic system can be fully self-grounding in Schlick's sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Axiomatic definitions stipulate the meanings of all their constituent concepts in terms of the remaining ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Axioms therefore define concepts by their relations to one another.
      ?

      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.