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 correct first-order translation of 'dragons exist' is '∃x (Exists(x) ∧ Dragon(x))', not '∃x Dragon(x)'.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In standard first-order logic, '∃x Dragon(x)' already carries existential import: the domain of quantification contains only existing objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's canonical criterion of ontological commitment identifies what exists with what the bound variables of true sentences range over, making 'Exists(x)' a redundant predicate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adding 'Exists(x)' as a first-order predicate generates a vicious regress: we must then ask whether the extension of Exists itself exists, requiring a meta-level predicate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Free logic, not an enriched first-order predicate, is the proper formal tool for handling non-referring terms like 'dragon', preserving a neutral domain without inflating the predicate inventory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates a metalinguistic question about domain membership with an object-language predication, a confusion van Fraassen and Lambert's free logic literature explicitly diagnoses and resolves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The quantifier '∃x' is neutral with respect to existence on its own.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Existential import requires an explicit existence predicate in addition to the quantifier.
      ?

      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.