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
    Reference to theoretical entities is not referentially ba... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Reference to theoretical entities is not referentially basic.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reference to theoretical entities is dependent on reference to material particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A category of reference is basic only if it is not parasitic on another category of reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scientific realists like Putnam argue theoretical terms refer via causal-descriptive chains independent of material particular identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reference to electrons is fixed by causal contact with electron-involving processes, it need not be parasitic on reference to medium-sized objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's ontological relativity shows that no category of reference is privileged as basic; all reference is theory-relative and holistic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If referential basicness is itself theory-dependent, the asymmetry Strawson posits between material particulars and theoretical entities collapses.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    A category of reference is basic only if it is not parasitic on another category...If reference to electrons is fixed by causal contact with electron-involving pro...If referential basicness is itself theory-dependent, the asymmetry Strawson posi...Quine's ontological relativity shows that no category of reference is privileged...
    +2 moreShow less
    Reference to theoretical entities is dependent on reference to material particul...Scientific realists like Putnam argue theoretical terms refer via causal-descrip...

    Similar

    The candidates for referential basicness, after setting aside theoreti...85%Reference to theoretical entities is dependent on reference to materia...83%Occurrences are not referentially basic.80%Primitive entities are those not to be explained or defined in terms o...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: strawson
    View source passageHide passage
    How should we think of these descriptive relations? Strawson claims in chapter 1 that these descriptive relations are fundamentally spatio-temporal. That is, my ability to think of James I rests on thinking of him as the person ascending the throne in 1603, the present time being 2018. Ultimately I fix on him via his place in a spatio-temporal framework which is centred on my currently perceived environment. Strawson further points out that since we need to update this relational framework over
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit