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 Nagel model of reduction can be refined to retain its spirit while avoiding many of its original problems

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kuhn and Feyerabend established that successor theories are often incommensurable with predecessor theories, not merely extensionally broader.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Incommensurability entails that bridge laws connecting theoretical terms across paradigms cannot be formulated without distorting one theory's meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A refinement that presupposes transtheoretic term identity inherits the original model's fatal semantic assumptions, not merely its formal limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fodor's multiple realizability argument shows that higher-level kinds systematically resist identification with any single lower-level physical kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If bridge laws must accommodate multiple realizability via disjunctions of lower-level predicates, they lose the nomological force required for genuine reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Schaffner-style refinements permitting 'corrected' versions of the reduced theory tacitly acknowledge theoretical replacement, not reduction proper.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Schaffner, Dizadji-Bahmani et al. (2010), and Butterfield (2011a&b) have developed variants of the Nagel model that address its criticisms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Refinements to the logical framework and relaxation of the completeness condition are viable modifications
      ?

      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.