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 irreducibility of demonstrative identification to descriptive identification holds even if the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII) is true

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A subject's epistemic limitations regarding distinguishing properties do not establish an ontological or semantic gap between demonstrative and descriptive modes of identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The description 'the object causally responsible for this perceptual state' is available to Sally and uniquely picks out Bill, grounding her demonstrative in a disguised definite description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If every demonstrative can be paraphrased by a causal-perceptual description that uniquely identifies its referent, then demonstratives are reducible to descriptions, contra the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The PII guarantees that any two distinct objects differ in at least one qualitative property, meaning a sufficiently complete description always uniquely identifies each object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If PII is true, Sally's apparent inability to distinguish Bill from Bill* reflects only her contingent ignorance, not any in-principle limit on descriptive identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The irreducibility argument illicitly conflates a practical epistemic limitation with a principled semantic thesis, making the conclusion about demonstrative irreducibility unwarranted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Let Bill and Bill* be distinct objects that differ in at least one quality, making their distinctness consistent with PII
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sally is unaware of the quality that distinguishes Bill from Bill*, so Bill and Bill* are qualitatively indiscernible as far as Sally is concerned
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intuitively, Sally is thinking of Bill and not Bill* despite being unable to descriptively distinguish them
      ?

      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.