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
    The choice of linguistic or conceptual frameworks cannot ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The choice of linguistic or conceptual frameworks cannot itself be a matter of rational justification, but only personal preference.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Carnap holds that rational discourse requires a framework to be in place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The choice of which framework to adopt occurs prior to any framework being in place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a framework, no rational argument can be made.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frameworks can be evaluated against each other by meta-criteria such as simplicity, fruitfulness, and coherence with established inquiry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction dissolves the sharp boundary between internal framework-relative claims and external framework choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If no principled boundary separates internal from external questions, framework selection is continuous with ordinary theory choice and subject to the same rational norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' demonstrates that hinge propositions function as pre-theoretical commitments that are nonetheless revisable under sufficient epistemic pressure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If even foundational framework-constituting commitments admit of rational revision through practice and experience, Carnap's internal/external distinction cannot sustain a domain of purely non-rational choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Carnap holds that rational discourse requires a framework to be in place.Frameworks can be evaluated against each other by meta-criteria such as simplici...If even foundational framework-constituting commitments admit of rational revisi...If no principled boundary separates internal from external questions, framework ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction dissolves the sharp bound...The choice of which framework to adopt occurs prior to any framework being in pl...Without a framework, no rational argument can be made.Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' demonstrates that hinge propositions function as p...

    Similar

    Without a framework, no rational argument can be made.77%Without a rational basis for the 'Subject-Object', there is no rationa...76%External questions about which conceptual framework to adopt can be de...76%Carnap holds that rational discourse requires a framework to be in pla...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: carnap
    View source passageHide passage
    However, it had been assumed that since Carnap required a framework to be in place for any kind of rational discourse to be possible, the choice of frameworks itself must be simply a matter of personal whim, at the level of Hume’s declaration that there is no rational argument for me to prefer the relief of a pain in my little toe to the prevention of some world-engulfing catastrophe. This problem of the irrationality of framework choice (George 2012) or—put another way—the supposed infinite reg
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit