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 Sellars's nominalism establishes that apparent reference to abstract objects dissolves under analysis into reference to linguistic roles and functional equivalence classes.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reducing abstract objects to linguistic roles threatens to make mathematics depend on contingent facts about human language practices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Functional equivalence classes still seem to be abstract objects themselves, so the nominalist analysis appears circular or incomplete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mathematical truths appear mind-independent and language-independent, but linguistic analysis suggests they depend on our conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Language use explains mathematical discourse without positing non-physical abstract objects that raise metaphysical puzzles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Linguistic roles and functional equivalence classes are ontologically transparent and empirically investigable, unlike abstract objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our successful scientific practice requires only structural patterns in language, not commitment to Platonic realm of abstracts.
      ?

      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.