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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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