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 open question argument is not decisive against naturalism

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The open question argument implausibly assumes that any correct definition or analysis must be obvious
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The open question argument implausibly assumes the correct response to the paradox of analysis is to deny that any analysis could be both correct and informative
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's distinction between epistemic and metaphysical necessity shows that conceivability gaps do not entail non-identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'water is H2O' is necessary yet non-obvious, then 'good is natural property N' can be necessary despite seeming open.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Moore's 'open question' intuition tracks epistemic distance, not metaphysical distinctness, undermining its anti-naturalist force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cornell realists like Sturgeon and Boyd ground moral naturalism in a posteriori synthetic identity, not conceptual analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The open question argument targets analytic naturalism specifically; synthetic naturalism is untouched by the charge that definitions must be obvious.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If moral terms rigidly designate natural properties discovered empirically, openness of associated questions is expected, not damning.
      ?

      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.