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 fact that the proposed universals were discarded does not refute Schütze's methodological concern that conflicting judgments held back the development of Government and Binding theory.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Schütze (1996) observed that conflicting judgments of relative unacceptability of violations of two linguistic universals held back the development of Government and Binding theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Phillips dismisses this concern on the grounds that the theories dealing with those examples are now largely forgotten and supplanted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The methodological concern about unreliable data is logically independent of whether the theory that was misled by that data is still accepted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.