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 entailment relation invoked by an entailment account of ontological commitment must be knowable a priori by any ideally rational agent.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion grounds ontological commitment in the bound variables of our best scientific theories, which are themselves subject to empirical revision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ontological commitments are hostage to empirical theory change, then recognizing them requires a posteriori knowledge of which theories survive scientific scrutiny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the entailment relation tracking ontological commitment cannot be fully knowable a priori, even by an ideally rational agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chalmers and Jackson's 'a priori entailment' program for metaphysics has been contested by Williamson, who argues that many necessary truths are only knowable a posteriori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If some logical or metaphysical entailments from true theories to existential conclusions are knowable only a posteriori, then rational failure to recognize ontological commitments need not constitute an a priori failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational accessibility to ontological commitment is thus compatible with its being discoverable only through a combination of logical analysis and empirical investigation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If ontological commitment is to play a role in theory choice or clarifying ontological disputes, then the ontological commitments of a theory must be rationally accessible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Failure to acknowledge the ontological commitments of one's theory must be a rational failing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational accessibility requires that the entailments of a theory be knowable a priori by any ideally rational agent.
      ?

      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.