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 Platonism is false

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If there are any sequences of abstract objects that satisfy our arithmetical theories, then there are infinitely many such sequences, and there is nothing metaphysically special about any of these sequences that makes it stand out as the sequence of natural numbers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Platonism is committed to the thesis that there is a unique sequence of abstract objects that is the natural numbers
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Benacerraf's epistemic challenge shows we lack any causal mechanism to reliably form true beliefs about causally inert abstract objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A truth-apt theory requiring entities we cannot in principle have epistemic access to violates the supervenience of knowledge on reliable belief-forming processes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, Platonism's posited abstract objects are not merely metaphysically extravagant but epistemically self-undermining, making the thesis empirically bankrupt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nominalist programs like Hartry Field's fictionalism demonstrate that mathematical theories can be applied in science without quantifying over abstract objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the theoretical work attributed to abstract objects can be done by concrete structures or fiction-relative truth, Occam's Razor eliminates the ontological surplus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The indispensability argument, Platonism's strongest support, fails once Field shows Newtonian mechanics is nominalizable without remainder.
      ?

      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.