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
    Scientific explanations of predicative facts follow this ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The Quine-Devitt scientific explanation strategy does not resolve the One Over Many problem for nominalists, but merely relocates it.

    Scientific explanations of predicative facts follow this pattern: explaining that a is F by citing a more fundamental predicate G.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Skepticism
    1 linked

    Related

    Each such explanation generates a new instance of the same explanatory demand th...If a nominalist explains why object a is F by appealing to the fact that a is G ...The Quine-Devitt scientific explanation strategy does not resolve the One Over M...

    Similar

    For an essential predication to be true, it suffices that the quidditi...78%Nominalists cannot claim all predicative facts are brute facts78%Denominative predication does not make a predication any less real.77%A predicative analysis applies predicates to reified sentence intensio...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    The Quine-Devitt response to the One Over Many begins with the claim that we can account for the fact that the ball is red, without appealing to the property of redness, by simply using whatever explanation scientists give of this fact. Now, by itself, this explanation will not satisfy advocates of the One Over Many argument. If we explain the fact that the ball is red by pointing out that its surface is structured in some specific way, then advocates of the One Over Many argument will say that

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective