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 Oscar− is a dog

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whether something is a dog depends on its intrinsic properties and kind-membership at a time, not on its future causal history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Oscar− at t lacks the complete biological constitution that grounds dog-kind membership, since tails are part of the normal canine form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Oscar−'s future role in a tail-losing event cannot retroactively confer kind membership it does not currently possess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Geach's relative identity thesis requires that 'is the same F as' be a logically primitive relation, but Wiggins argues this generates vicious semantic indeterminacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Oscar− counts as a dog at t solely because it will constitute Oscar-minus-tail at t', then identity conditions for dogs become hostage to arbitrary future events.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sortal like 'dog' must supply determinate persistence and application conditions independently of contingent future states, on pain of abandoning sortalism altogether.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When Oscar loses his tail, the resulting creature is certainly a dog
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Oscar− is what remains when Oscar loses his tail, and it is present at t with the same properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is no principled reason to deny that Oscar− is a dog at t if it becomes a dog at t'
      ?

      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.