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
    In physics, the questions 'whether X is' and 'what X is' ... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    In physics, the questions 'whether X is' and 'what X is' both ask for any kind of cause of X's existing, including extrinsic efficient or final causes.

    CausationProof of definition segments
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Physical science seeks causal explanations of phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Physical causes include causes internal and external to X, such as extrinsic efficient or final causes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An extrinsic cause, such as the earth blocking sunlight from reaching the moon, can be incorporated into a physical definition (as in the case of eclipse).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's Posterior Analytics distinguishes definitional 'what is it' questions from causal 'why is it' questions as logically prior and independent inquiries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A definition specifying essential attributes of X can be complete and scientifically adequate without reference to extrinsic efficient or final causes of X's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating definitional and causal questions risks circular explanation, since extrinsic causes presuppose the prior identification of the definable entity they act upon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's critical philosophy establishes that efficient causation is a category of the understanding applied to appearances, not a constitutive feature of physical definitions of natural kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'what X is' necessarily invokes extrinsic efficient causes, then definitions of natural kinds would be observer-relative and indexed to contingent causal histories rather than expressing necessary properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    CausationProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A definition specifying essential attributes of X can be complete and scientific...An extrinsic cause, such as the earth blocking sunlight from reaching the moon, ...Aristotle's Posterior Analytics distinguishes definitional 'what is it' question...Conflating definitional and causal questions risks circular explanation, since e...
    +4 moreShow less
    If 'what X is' necessarily invokes extrinsic efficient causes, then definitions ...Kant's critical philosophy establishes that efficient causation is a category of...Physical causes include causes internal and external to X, such as extrinsic eff...Physical science seeks causal explanations of phenomena.

    Similar

    In divine science, if 'whether God is' means whether there is a cause ...84%To determine what X is scientifically, one must first investigate whet...81%Dialectical questions about the existence of X are properly classified...80%The question of whether there is a constituting cause of God is a legi...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: al-farabi-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Fârâbî takes this result as indicating that dialectic and demonstrative science give different meanings, not only to the “what is X?” question and thus to quiddity (dialectic seeking a nominal definition, science a causal definition), but also to the “whether X is” question and thus to existence. So he says that, as in dialectic the two-place investigation “whether X is Y” is only concerned with the copula (not with whether it is essential predication), so in dialectic the one-place investigatio
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit