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
    It is incoherent to be sceptical about the identification... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is incoherent to be sceptical about the identification procedures that confirm spatio-temporal re-identifications while still thinking within the spatio-temporal framework.

    Philosophy of LanguageSkepticism
    ?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.Our ability to maintain a grasp on the spatio-temporal framework depends on accepting re-identifications of objects and places encountered at different times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rejecting the procedures on which the framework depends while continuing to use the framework is self-undermining.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's web-of-belief model shows that framework-constitutive principles can be revised under sufficient theoretical pressure without immediate incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A skeptic can coherently question re-identification procedures as an internal theoretical revision while provisionally operating within the framework, just as scientists question measurement axioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's hinge propositions in 'On Certainty' show that framework-enabling beliefs can be doubted in philosophical reflection even if they cannot be acted against in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The performative impossibility of abandoning a framework does not entail the logical incoherence of skeptical doubt about its constitutive procedures, since practical and semantic incoherence are distinct.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Personal Identity1 linked

    Related

    A skeptic can coherently question re-identification procedures as an internal th...Our ability to maintain a grasp on the spatio-temporal framework depends on acce...Quine's web-of-belief model shows that framework-constitutive principles can be ...Rejecting the procedures on which the framework depends while continuing to use ...
    +2 moreShow less
    The performative impossibility of abandoning a framework does not entail the log...Wittgenstein's hinge propositions in 'On Certainty' show that framework-enabling...

    Similar

    Our ability to maintain a grasp on the spatio-temporal framework depen...82%Purely qualitative (descriptive) identification is insufficient to uni...75%Standard Linguistic Entities (SLEs) cannot be identified with physical...74%Objects cannot have spatio-temporal structure independently of our rep...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: strawson
    View source passageHide passage
    How should we think of these descriptive relations? Strawson claims in chapter 1 that these descriptive relations are fundamentally spatio-temporal. That is, my ability to think of James I rests on thinking of him as the person ascending the throne in 1603, the present time being 2018. Ultimately I fix on him via his place in a spatio-temporal framework which is centred on my currently perceived environment. Strawson further points out that since we need to update this relational framework over
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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