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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The qualification 'qua appearances' or 'considered with our epistemic conditions' is redundant (otiose) when describing objects under an epistemic condition.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.An object must satisfy (fall under) a representation if that representation is to constitute an epistemic condition for that object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space is an epistemic condition of outer objects for us, then objects we cognize are in space simpliciter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, adding the qualification 'qua appearances' adds no further content beyond saying the objects are spatial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's distinction between sense and reference shows that co-referential terms can differ in cognitive significance without adding ontological content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'qua appearances' and 'spatial objects' co-refer without difference in sense, the qualification is logically idle by Frege's own criterion of informativeness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A redundant qualifier that adds no new sense or reference is, by definition, otiose in any well-formed epistemic description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment holds that we are committed only to what our best theories quantify over, not to how we describe what we quantify over.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the domain of objects cognized under spatial conditions just is the domain of appearances, the qualifier 'qua appearances' tracks no additional variable in our ontological inventory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A description that introduces no new bound variable and carves no new ontological joint adds no substantive content to the claim it modifies.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42