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 Ontological reduction is distinct from epistemic reduction in terms of the nature of its relata

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nagel's classic account treats reduction as a logical relation between theory-statements, yet this formal relation simultaneously constrains what ontological identities are permissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When epistemic reduction fixes truth conditions for bridge laws, it thereby determines the identity or constitution relations among the very entities ostensibly governed by ontological reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the same bridge-law structure does the work in both cases, the distinction in the nature of the relata collapses into a merely notational difference rather than a genuine categorical one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Representational entities like theories and concepts are themselves ontological items in the world, blurring the representational/non-representational divide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If theories are constituents of scientific practice and thus of reality, the relata of epistemic reduction are also non-representational in the relevant ontological sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic reduction requires relata that are representational in nature
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ontological reduction requires relata that are non-representational entities
      ?

      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.