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
    Social groups cannot be identified with sets of people in... — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Social groups cannot be identified with sets of people in the mathematical sense

    Personal Identity
    ?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.Social groups can persist through changes in membership
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sets are generally understood as having their members essentially (i.e., a set cannot gain or lose members)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Personal IdentitySocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Modality & Possibility
    1 linked

    Related

    Sets are generally understood as having their members essentially (i.e., a set c...Social groups can persist through changes in membership

    Similar

    Social groups can be identified with complex sets that allow different...77%Simple mathematical sets have their members essentially and cannot acc...72%Sets are generally understood as having their members essentially (i.e...72%Therefore, originating from a particular gamete pair is not sufficient...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: social-ontology
    View source passageHide passage
    What are social groups? One debate in the literature concerns the kind of entities that social groups are: collections, classes, sets, fusions, structures, or some other kind of entity. It may seem natural to think of a group as a set of people in the mathematical sense. However, groups can persist through changes in membership, while sets are generally understood as having their members essentially (see Sharvy 1968, Ruben 1985, Uzquiano 2004, Sheehy 2006). Effingham (2010) proposes an account t
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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