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 of ontological commitment shows that what a theory 'says there is' depends on regimentation, not ordinary-language meaning.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Regimentation choices are constrained by fidelity to original meaning; we cannot arbitrarily assign ontology via notation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If ontology depends entirely on regimentation, then theoretical ontology becomes conventional rather than truth-tracking about reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ordinary language speakers have genuine referential intentions that determine what their claims commit them to, prior to regimentation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Natural language is ambiguous and context-dependent, making ontological claims unclear without formal regimentation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
First-order logic regimentation reveals hidden quantificational structure that ordinary language obscures or leaves implicit.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Different regimentation schemes can be equally adequate empirically, showing meaning doesn't determine ontology uniquely.
?
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.