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
    Positing a hybrid object merely to preserve ordinary talk... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Hybrid ontological objects (intersections of mental, abstract, and physical categories) are metaphysically permissible

    Positing a hybrid object merely to preserve ordinary talk of 'languages' multiplies ontological categories without corresponding explanatory gain.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ontological parsimony is a fundamental principle: we should not multiply entities beyond necessity without empirical or explanatory benefits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ordinary language conventions (like saying 'English') don't themselves justify positing new metaphysical categories with unclear identity conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-hybrid alternatives (abstracta, concrete tokens, or pluralities) adequately explain linguistic phenomena without hybrid object complications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Languages exhibit properties of both abstract types (systematic rules) and concrete tokens (historical utterances)—genuine hybrids may be needed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rejecting hybrid objects forces artificial forced choices: treating languages as purely abstract loses explanatory contact with actual speakers' practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explanatory gain includes conceptual adequacy—avoiding category errors matters even if non-hybrid alternatives technically 'work' with awkward stipulations.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Explanatory gain includes conceptual adequacy—avoiding category errors matters e...Hybrid ontological objects (intersections of mental, abstract, and physical cate...Languages exhibit properties of both abstract types (systematic rules) and concr...Non-hybrid alternatives (abstracta, concrete tokens, or pluralities) adequately ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Ontological parsimony is a fundamental principle: we should not multiply entitie...Ordinary language conventions (like saying 'English') don't themselves justify p...Rejecting hybrid objects forces artificial forced choices: treating languages as...

    Details

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