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
    Scholastic substantial forms are problematic as unobserva... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Scholastic substantial forms are problematic as unobservables.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Unobservables should not be specialized natures or forces invoked only to account for certain phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scholastic substantial forms are specialized natures or forces invoked only to account for certain phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Scholastic substantial forms are specialized natures or forces invoked only to a...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Unobservables should not be specialized natures or forces invoked only to accoun...

    Similar

    Scholastic substantial forms are specialized natures or forces invoked...82%Assuming the falsity of substantial forms in an argument against subst...82%Locke's borderline cases argument against substantial forms fails78%Nature presents us with the effects of substantial forms76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: wright
    View source passageHide passage
    Even at this, unobservables should not be specialized natures or forces taken to account just for certain phenomena. This was, according to Wright, the problem with scholastic substantial forms (PD 166–67). His criticism of metaphysical concepts was that they are empirically poor; they do not link different phenomena and do not generate predictions that can be verified at the level of the tangible and visible. Unlike early modern critics of scholastic metaphysical concepts, Wright did not claim
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit