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 One could have good scientific reasons for favouring either substantivalism or relationalism.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Empirically equivalent theories can differ radically in ontological commitments, so scientific success cannot adjudicate between substantivalism and relationalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The hole argument, revived by Earman and Norton (1987), shows that diffeomorphism invariance renders substantivalist spacetime points indistinguishable by any physical observable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no physical observable can distinguish competing ontologies, scientific reasons cannot favor one over the other—only metaphysical criteria remain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quantization procedures (canonical, path integral, spin foam) yield structurally different theories, so methodological success in one approach does not generalize to a unified ontological verdict.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since the success of a quantization method is theory-relative rather than interpretation-neutral, P1's conditional cannot ground a general scientific reason favoring either ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • If a particular method (retaining or eliminating symmetries) were shown to be successful in the quest for quantizing gravity, that method's associated ontology would be scientifically supported.
      ?

      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.