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's criterion grounds ontological commitment in the b... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The entailment relation invoked by an entailment account of ontological commitment must be knowable a priori by any ideally rational agent.

    Quine's criterion grounds ontological commitment in the bound variables of our best scientific theories, which are themselves subject to empirical revision.

    ?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.Bound variables in quantified statements directly express what a theory claims exists, making them a reliable indicator of ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tying ontology to empirically revisable theories prevents metaphysical speculation untethered from evidence and scientific practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This criterion provides an objective, syntactic method for comparing ontological claims across different theories without vague interpretation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The same ontological commitment can be expressed using different bound variables through logical paraphrase, so variables don't uniquely determine what exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many uncontroversial existents (properties, numbers, abstract objects) may not appear as bound variables in our best current scientific theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirical revisability of theories doesn't establish that ontology itself should shift—we might revise our descriptions while ontology remains stable.
      ?

      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

    Bound variables in quantified statements directly express what a theory claims e...Empirical revisability of theories doesn't establish that ontology itself should...Many uncontroversial existents (properties, numbers, abstract objects) may not a...The entailment relation invoked by an entailment account of ontological commitme...
    +3 moreShow less
    The same ontological commitment can be expressed using different bound variables...This criterion provides an objective, syntactic method for comparing ontological...Tying ontology to empirically revisable theories prevents metaphysical speculati...

    Details

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