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 Quine argued in 'On What There Is' that positing irreducibly distinct ontological spheres multiplies entities beyond necessity and violates parsimony.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some domains exhibit genuinely distinct causal properties: abstract entities causally inert, physical entities causally efficacious—conflating them obscures real differences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parsimony itself is theoretically underdetermined; Quine provides no principled argument for why ontological parsimony should override explanatory adequacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mathematical and logical truths require abstract objects to preserve their indispensability; eliminating them requires revisionist mathematics with severe costs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ontological parsimony is a rational principle: simpler theories requiring fewer fundamental kinds are preferable when empirically equivalent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Multiple irreducible spheres (abstract objects, physical objects, etc.) create explanatory redundancy without improving predictive power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Univocal existence criteria across domains is methodologically simpler than defending distinct existence standards for different entity-types.
      ?

      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.