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 Nominalists like Quine and Nelson Goodman argue that positing abstract unifying objects violates ontological parsimony when functional equivalents exist.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical and logical truths seem to require abstract objects as their truthmakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nominalist 'functional equivalents' often covertly reintroduce abstract entities through backdoor commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parsimony about entities shouldn't override explanatory power and theoretical elegance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Occam's Razor requires minimizing ontological commitments without explanatory loss.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Concrete particulars and their relations can replicate all explanatory work abstract objects perform.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abstract objects create epistemological puzzles (access, identity) that concrete alternatives avoid.
      ?

      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.