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 Langton and Lewis account is most charitably interpreted as an account of duplication preservation or qualitative metaphysical necessitation interiority

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Langton and Lewis explicitly define intrinsicality via perfectly natural properties, not via duplication-preservation as a primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The duplication-preservation account is Lewis's 1983 framework; conflating it with the 1998 Langton-Lewis naturalness account misreads the dialectical progression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Charitable interpretation requires tracking an author's stated theoretical commitments, which here center on natural properties, not modal duplication conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Yablo's (1999) independence-based account shows intrinsicality can be analyzed without invoking duplication, undermining the assumption that Langton-Lewis must be so interpreted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Langton and Lewis's account reduces to duplication-preservation, it becomes explanatorily redundant given Lewis 1986a, which Langton and Lewis explicitly sought to improve upon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Langton and Lewis account fails as an account of qualitative identity interior properties
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Like the Lewis 1986a account, the Langton and Lewis account faces similar interpretive challenges
      ?

      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.