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 Jones must endorse Hamilton's view that predicates are quantified in order to retain the thesis that significant assertion is the assertion of an identity

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege demonstrated in Begriffsschrift that predication is irreducibly asymmetric: the function-argument structure cannot be collapsed into identity without loss of inferential power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Jones's identity thesis, if it requires Hamilton's quantified predicates, inherits the circularity Bradley identified: quantifying predicates already presupposes a relational structure that mere identity cannot ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Venn and Jevons showed that Hamilton's quantification of the predicate generates redundant and logically ill-formed propositions that violate the principle of parsimony in formal systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A thesis requiring a flawed logical apparatus as its necessary condition is undermined by the availability of Boole's algebraic logic, which preserves propositional significance without quantifying predicates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Without quantified predicates, 'All humans are mortal' entails the nonsensical 'Mortals are all humans'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.With quantified predicates, the entailed consequence 'Some mortals are all humans' is intelligible as a near-identity statement
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Jones's core thesis requires that significant assertions be interpretable as identity assertions
      ?

      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.