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 that ontological reduction via proxy functions shows interpretability preserves structure but not ontological equivalence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If interpretability requires structure preservation, claiming non-equivalence becomes unclear—what makes ontologies genuinely different?
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine himself emphasized indeterminacy of translation; proxy functions may not achieve the determinate equivalence this claim assumes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates translation-success with ontological claims, but preservation of structure arguably *is* what ontological equivalence means.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Proxy functions preserve logical relations and inferential patterns between entities even when ontologies differ fundamentally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two theories can be intertranslatable yet commit to different fundamental entities, showing structure alone doesn't determine what exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's approach avoids collapsing the distinction between mathematical convenience and metaphysical truth about reality.
      ?

      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.