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 'The ball has the property of redness' is, strictly speaking, untrue

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Predicates like 'is red' can be understood as primitive predications without ontological commitment to abstract property-entities (Quine, 'On What There Is').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'the ball is red' is true and 'the ball has the property of redness' is merely a stylistic variant, both sentences carry identical truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sentence that is merely a grammatical paraphrase of a true sentence cannot be strictly untrue without collapsing the distinction between ontology and grammar.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Immanent realism (Armstrong) holds that properties exist as wholly located universals instantiated in particular objects, not as abstract Platonic entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If properties exist immanently in the ball itself, P2—'there are no such things as properties'—is false, and the supporting argument loses its key premise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The denial of abstract properties does not entail the denial of all conceptions of properties, so the conclusion overgeneralizes from one contested ontological position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.'The ball has the property of redness' does commit to the existence of the property of redness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are no such things as properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A sentence that commits to the existence of entities that do not exist is strictly speaking untrue
      ?

      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.