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 descriptive view is refuted if there are metaphysically possible instances of kind C that do not possess the property complex D.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If D is constitutive of the meaning of 'C', then the statement 'All C are D' (K) should be analytic and therefore necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If (K) is necessary, then no metaphysically possible instance of C can lack D.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There exist metaphysically possible instances of kind C that do not possess the property complex D.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's modal argument shows that terms like 'water' rigidly designate their referents across possible worlds, independent of any associated description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rigid designator picks out the same entity in all possible worlds, so 'water' refers to H2O even in worlds where H2O lacks properties we associate with water.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, a possible world containing XYZ with all water's surface properties but lacking H2O structure contains no water, refuting D-based descriptivism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's Twin Earth argument demonstrates that natural kind terms have their extensions fixed by the actual constitution of paradigm samples, not by speakers' descriptive knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since extension is fixed by causal-historical baptism of samples rather than descriptions, possible instances sharing all of D but lacking actual microstructure fall outside the kind's extension.
      ?

      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.