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 proposed counterexample to the thesis that no instanc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The proposed counterexample to the thesis that no instance of RI is true fails.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.If 'A' and 'B' refer to the same objects throughout (1), then the first conjunct of (1) is not an identity statement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If both conjuncts of (1) are identity statements in the required sense, then 'A' and 'B' must refer to word types in the first conjunct and word tokens in the second.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In either disjunctive case, the counterexample fails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language3 linked

    Related

    If 'A' and 'B' refer to the same objects throughout (1), then the first conjunct...If both conjuncts of (1) are identity statements in the required sense, then 'A'...In either disjunctive case, the counterexample fails.

    Similar

    Carter's argument against the claim that S and S' are identical fails81%If the conclusion fails while the other premises hold, then Purity-F m...81%In either disjunctive case, the counterexample fails.79%If (a) fails, there is no appropriate candidate for the proposition th...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    “If ‘\(A\)’ and ‘\(B\)’ refer to the same objects throughout (1), the first conjunct of (1) is not an identity statement, and the counterexample (to the thesis that no instance of RI is true) fails. If both conjuncts are identity statements in the required sense, ‘\(A\)’ and ‘\(B\)’ must refer to word types in the first conjunct and word tokens in the second, and the counterexample fails” (Perry 1970).
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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