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 scientific concept of language should be defined as a... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The scientific concept of language should be defined as a union of various ontological perspectives rather than by eliminating any single perspective

    All sources support itPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Each ontological perspective on language has ineliminable status
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Katz's eliminative strategy is contrasted as the opposing approach
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Language descriptively is whatever linguists take as their primary object of study
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A union of incompatible ontologies produces an incoherent object of study, not a richer one—Quine's criterion of ontological commitment demands parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If I-language (Chomsky) and E-language (external social facts) have contradictory individuation conditions, their union cannot ground a unified scientific program.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Katz's eliminativist strategy is not merely an opposing approach but reflects the standard scientific practice of reducing folk ontologies to theoretically productive kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descriptive deference to whatever linguists study conflates the sociology of a discipline with its normative epistemology, committing a naturalistic fallacy about scientific methodology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageAll sources support it

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge4 linked

    Related

    A union of incompatible ontologies produces an incoherent object of study, not a...Descriptive deference to whatever linguists study conflates the sociology of a d...Each ontological perspective on language has ineliminable statusIf I-language (Chomsky) and E-language (external social facts) have contradictor...
    +4 moreShow less
    Katz's eliminative strategy is contrasted as the opposing approachKatz's eliminativist strategy is not merely an opposing approach but reflects th...Language descriptively is whatever linguists take as their primary object of stu...Language normatively is whatever linguists should be studying

    Similar

    Platonism about language is the correct ontological view to adopt84%Each ontological perspective on language has ineliminable status82%The only scientifically interesting conception of a language is the I-...82%'The linguistic' is a complex phenomenon with parts that belong to dis...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: linguistics
    View source passageHide passage
    The first thing Santana does is to separate the discussion into two related questions, one scientific and the other metascientific or ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ in his terms. He claims that “[l]anguage, the scientific concept, is thus descriptively whatever it is that linguists take as their primary object of study, and normatively whatever it is they should be studying” (Santana, 2016: 501). Eventually he advocates a union of various ontologies based on the ineliminable status of each perspe
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit