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
    Philosophers should investigate what kinds of things dise... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Philosophers should investigate what kinds of things diseases are ontologically, rather than analyzing the concept of disease.

    Bioethics
    ?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.Traditional conceptual analyses of disease are insufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Working out what instances of disease have in common via inductive generalization yields a more grounded understanding than conceptual analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A bottom-up approach examining what instances of chronic disease share in common can yield inductive generalizations about disease as a category.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ontological investigation of disease presupposes a prior conceptual grasp of what counts as a disease instance, making conceptual analysis logically prior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a concept of disease guiding case selection, inductive generalization from 'instances' risks circularity or arbitrary sample construction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wittgenstein and Quine both demonstrated that the analytic/ontological distinction cannot be cleanly separated in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boorse's biostatistical theory and Nordenfelt's action-theoretic account show that competing ontologies of disease track competing normative commitments, not discoverable natural facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If disease categories are partly constituted by social and evaluative practices, as Engelhardt argued, then conceptual analysis of those practices is irreducible to ontological inquiry.
      ?

      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

    BioethicsPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    A bottom-up approach examining what instances of chronic disease share in common...Boorse's biostatistical theory and Nordenfelt's action-theoretic account show th...If disease categories are partly constituted by social and evaluative practices,...Ontological investigation of disease presupposes a prior conceptual grasp of wha...
    +4 moreShow less
    Traditional conceptual analyses of disease are insufficient.Without a concept of disease guiding case selection, inductive generalization fr...Wittgenstein and Quine both demonstrated that the analytic/ontological distincti...Working out what instances of disease have in common via inductive generalizatio...

    Similar

    Philosophers should aim to naturalize disease by first understanding g...83%Traditional conceptual analyses of disease are insufficient.80%Scientific biomedical inquiry may determine that a condition is a dise...80%Treating diseases as putative natural kinds allows for a revisionist b...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: health-disease
    View source passageHide passage
    Revisionist naturalists argue that facts about physiological and psychological functioning, like other biological facts, obtain independently of human conceptions of the world. Our intuitions might tell us that a condition is not a disease. But scientific inquiry might conclude that people with the condition are really suffering from a biological malfunction. In that case, a conservative would recommend finessing the analysis to ensure that the concept of disease does not cover this case. A revi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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