Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Metaphysical explanation cannot be understood free from pragmatic constraints
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Grounding relations obtain mind-independently between entities, regardless of any cognitive agent's explanatory interests or context.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Fine's work on ontological dependence shows metaphysical priority is a feature of reality's structure, not a product of inquiry framing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If pragmatic constraints were constitutive of grounding, then grounding facts would vary with epistemic communities—an unacceptable form of relativism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Van Inwagen's distinction between metaphysical and scientific explanation preserves an autonomous domain governed by necessity, not contextual salience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The logical form of 'A in virtue of B' is a binary relation between facts that carries no indexical or context-sensitive components in its truth conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Metaphysical explanations are pairs of context-sensitive questions and answers
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The role of context in metaphysical explanation is ineliminable
?
How convincing is this?
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.