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
    Metaphysical reductions must always be backed by apriori ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Metaphysical reductions must always be backed by apriori entailments between the base-level claim and the target claim.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.The role of conceptual analysis is to show that a putative reduction respects the original meaning of the target expression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A successful reduction must be answerable to our original shared understanding of the target expression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Elucidating the original shared understanding of a target expression just is what conceptual analysis does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Papineau and others argue physicalist reductions succeed via empirical identity claims, not conceptual analysis, making them irreducibly a posteriori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conceptual analysis of phenomenal terms like 'pain' systematically fails to yield apriori entailments from physical descriptions, yet physicalism may still be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If physicalism can be true despite the explanatory gap being unbridgeable apriori, then apriori entailment is not a necessary condition for metaphysical reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's a posteriori necessities (e.g., water=H2O) constitute genuine metaphysical reductions without any corresponding apriori entailment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If successful reductions exist that are knowable only a posteriori, then apriori entailment cannot be a necessary condition for metaphysical reduction.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language4 linked

    Related

    A successful reduction must be answerable to our original shared understanding o...Conceptual analyses are knowable apriori.Conceptual analysis of phenomenal terms like 'pain' systematically fails to yiel...Elucidating the original shared understanding of a target expression just is wha...
    +5 moreShow less
    If physicalism can be true despite the explanatory gap being unbridgeable aprior...If successful reductions exist that are knowable only a posteriori, then apriori...Kripke's a posteriori necessities (e.g., water=H2O) constitute genuine metaphysi...Papineau and others argue physicalist reductions succeed via empirical identity ...The role of conceptual analysis is to show that a putative reduction respects th...

    Similar

    A successful reduction must be answerable to our original shared under...72%A successful reduction must respect the original meaning of the target...71%A view committed only to normative reduction does not satisfy both con...70%A reduction of a concept cannot legitimately presuppose that concept i...69%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: two-dimensional-semantics
    View source passageHide passage
    The role of conceptual analysis is to show that a putative reduction respects the original meaning of the target expression (Jackson 1998a, 28). A physicalist won’t succeed in accounting for free will if she identifies free will with having a temperature of 37.4º C – such a “reduction” would simply change the subject under discussion. A successful reduction must be answerable to our original shared understanding of the target expression—and elucidating this original understanding just is what co
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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