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's criterion of ontological commitment entails that semantic decisions about logical form directly determine what entities one is committed to, collapsing the supposed ontology/semantics distinction.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ontology concerns what actually exists; semantics concerns representation. These address different questions regardless of Quine's criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Multiple logically-distinct forms can express the same content; using different forms needn't reflect genuine ontological disagreement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's criterion identifies *linguistic commitment*, not necessarily what exists—a semantic fact need not settle metaphysical reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion ties ontological commitment to quantifier binding, making logical form the determinant of what we're committed to.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Semantic conventions about how to represent statements logically are not discovered but chosen, yet they bind us to entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If changing notation from 'exists x' to 'for some x' changes ontological commitment, semantics and ontology cannot be independent.
      ?

      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.