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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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