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 Supervenience without identity merely redescribes the explanatory gap rather than closing it, leaving the grounding relation between institutional and physical properties unexplained.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Grounding and identity are distinct relations; non-reductive grounding (e.g., composition) successfully explains dependence without requiring identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Institutional properties may be constituted by physical properties without reduction; constitution provides genuine explanation beyond mere supervenience covariance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The demand that grounding requires identity assumes physicalist reductionism; pluralists rightly reject this as an unwarranted constraint on explanatory adequacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supervenience only establishes covariance; it logically permits multiple realizability without explaining why institutional properties depend on physical ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without identity reduction, we lack an account of how physical facts necessitate institutional facts, leaving their relationship merely stipulated rather than grounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The explanatory gap persists because supervenience leaves open why *these* physical properties generate *these* institutional properties rather than others.
      ?

      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.