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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.