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 Quinean nominalists can block the One Over Many argument by appealing to bruteness in a more subtle way

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Devitt's 'bruteness' strategy merely relocates the explanatory burden rather than dissolving it, leaving primitive resemblance unexplained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Armstrong's immanent realism demonstrates that any nominalist appeal to brute predication still requires a truthmaker, which bare particulars cannot provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A regress of unexplained resemblances is no less problematic than the original One Over Many demand for a common property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rodriguez-Pereyra's resemblance nominalism shows that 'subtle bruteness' collapses into an infinite resemblance regress that Quinean ontology cannot arrest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's own criterion of ontological commitment, applied consistently, forces quantification over properties when predicates appear in true sentences, undermining any nominalist block.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Nominalists cannot claim all predicative facts are brute facts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is a more subtle way to appeal to bruteness, as Devitt points out
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This more subtle appeal to bruteness is available to Quinean nominalists
      ?

      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.