Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Quine's criterion holds that to be is to be the value of a bound variable, making existential quantification inseparable from ontological commitment.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
We can quantify over useful fictions (numbers, properties) without truly believing they exist in the same sense as physical objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bound variables are artifacts of notation; what we're *really* committed to depends on interpretation, not syntactic form alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quine's criterion makes ontology parasitic on language choice, yet different logical notations can formalize identical theories differently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Quantified variables in formal logic are the primary mechanism for expressing what we claim exists in our best theories.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without tying ontology to quantification, we lack a principled method to identify what our theories genuinely commit us to.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quine's criterion avoids arbitrary distinctions between 'real' and 'merely discussed' entities by using logical form as the arbiter.
?
How convincing is this?
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.