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 cookie cutter model of types — the idea that a type is a perceptible pattern that all tokens resemble — does not work

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There are generally no properties had by all and only tokens of a given word type (not same phonological structure, nor same sense, nor same spelling)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not all tokens of a type have any natural projectible property except for the property of being tokens of the same type
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance argument shows that type-members share overlapping similarities rather than a single common perceptible pattern.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no single perceptible pattern is shared by all tokens, the cookie cutter model's core mechanism — pattern-matching — cannot be the basis for type-membership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Homographic words like 'bank' demonstrate that perceptually identical tokens belong to distinct types, severing resemblance from type-individuation entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Peirce's original type-token distinction was grounded in abstract law-like relations, not perceptual resemblance, making the cookie cutter model a misreading of the framework's own foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Abstract objects like the word-type 'the' lack spatiotemporal location and therefore cannot serve as a perceptible pattern that tokens could literally resemble.
      ?

      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.