Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The 'common-sensical' notion of reference Feigl invokes presupposes a framework-relative ontology, collapsing the distinction he draws.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Framework-relativity and distinction-drawing are compatible; both can hold within a coherent position.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Common-sense reference (e.g., 'the table') and scientific reference (e.g., 'H₂O') may differ in *precision* without losing their distinct epistemic status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Collapse of distinctions requires showing frameworks cannot be compared or evaluated; Feigl need not claim this.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
All reference requires background assumptions about what exists and how language maps onto reality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Feigl's distinction between 'common sense' and 'scientific' reference presupposes one framework as neutral.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If reference is framework-relative, no framework can claim privileged access to 'direct' reference.
?
How convincing is this?
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.