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
    The Platonist explanation of the One Over Many argument i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Platonist explanation of the One Over Many argument is uninformative

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Platonist explanation (P) of the nominalist datum (N) amounts to saying that gluons are G because they possess a nature that makes it the case that they are G
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An explanation that merely restates the explanandum in different words is uninformative
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Related

    An explanation that merely restates the explanandum in different words is uninfo...The Platonist explanation (P) of the nominalist datum (N) amounts to saying that...

    Similar

    The Platonist explanation (P) is uninformative as an explanation of (N...81%The One Over Many argument claims that (P) explains (N)81%Searle's Chinese Room argument relies on untutored intuitions rather t...79%The soundness of the B-Deduction argument is imperiled78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    Whichever view nominalists adopt here, they can respond to the One Over Many argument — i.e., to the claim that we can explain (N) by endorsing (P) — in the same way, namely, by pointing out that as an explanation of (N), (P) is completely uninformative. Even if nominalists endorse a fictionalist view according to which (P) is not equivalent to (N), they can still say that the above explanation is uninformative, because it really just says that gluons are G because they possess a nature that mak
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit