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 Kripke's rule-following considerations show precisely that no purely descriptive fact fixes the unique correct projection of a rule, making normative supplementation a theoretical necessity, not a luxury.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Normative facts themselves require determination; invoking norms doesn't solve the regress but merely relocates the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descriptive facts about social practices, communal training, and shared dispositions may sufficiently constitute rule-following norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The conclusion conflates epistemological underdetermination with metaphysical indeterminacy; facts need not be fully specifiable to exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Past behavior and dispositional facts underdetermine future application: infinite interpretations fit any finite history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Normative facts (what we ought to do) are categorically distinct from descriptive facts (what we do or are disposed to do).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without normative supplementation, rule-following collapses into mere pattern-matching with no genuine normativity or correctness.
      ?

      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.