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
    Quine and Putnam's indispensability argument holds that o... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Infinite mathematical objects, such as the completed set of all natural numbers and arbitrary irrational numbers represented by Dedekind cuts, do not exist.

    Quine and Putnam's indispensability argument holds that ontological commitment is owed to any entity whose posit is ineliminable from our best confirmed scientific theories.

    ?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.Our best scientific theories are our most reliable guides to what exists, as they've survived rigorous empirical testing and peer review.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we can reformulate a theory to eliminate an entity without loss of empirical adequacy, we should prefer the simpler theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Entities ineliminable from all such simplified theories deserve ontological commitment as genuinely indispensable to explaining nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Multiple empirically equivalent theories can posit radically different ontologies, so indispensability doesn't track what genuinely exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mathematical objects (sets, numbers) may be ineliminable from physics yet be merely useful fictions rather than real entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientific theories evolve; today's indispensable entity often becomes tomorrow's obsolete posit, undermining the argument's stability.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Entities ineliminable from all such simplified theories deserve ontological comm...If we can reformulate a theory to eliminate an entity without loss of empirical ...Infinite mathematical objects, such as the completed set of all natural numbers ...Mathematical objects (sets, numbers) may be ineliminable from physics yet be mer...
    +3 moreShow less
    Multiple empirically equivalent theories can posit radically different ontologie...Our best scientific theories are our most reliable guides to what exists, as the...Scientific theories evolve; today's indispensable entity often becomes tomorrow'...

    Details

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