The supporting argument's premise that 'nothing is between A and D' already invokes relational betweenness, making the contact-with-spatial-parts gloss redundant and ontologically inflationary.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Relational betweenness is a primitive concept requiring no further spatial decomposition into parts or contact relations.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Invoking spatial parts and contact adds ontological commitments without explaining what makes betweenness hold between them.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Parsimony favors theories that explain spatial structure via minimal primitives rather than layered spatial and mereological entities.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Betweenness being primitive does not explain *why* nothing lies between A and D—contact-with-parts provides a substantive account.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Spatial parts and contact relations are independently needed for topology; denying them elsewhere doesn't reduce total ontology.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Circularity objections assume relational betweenness requires definition rather than acceptance as a foundational spatial primitive.
?
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.

Key Terms

Premise: A premise is a statement or fact that you assume to be true as a starting point for reasoning or making an argument. Think of it as the foundation or building block you use to reach a conclusion—for example, "All dogs are animals" and "My pet is a dog" are premises that lead to the conclusion "My pet is an animal." Premises are essentially the evidence or claims you offer before drawing a final conclusion.
contact-with-spatial-parts(a proposed explanation for how objects relate to each other spatially): A theory suggesting that one object 'touches' or 'is between' another by physically connecting with specific pieces of those objects.
gloss(a restatement or clarification of a philosophical concept): An explanation or interpretation of something, often a simpler way of rephrasing a complex idea.
ontologically inflationary(a criticism that an explanation assumes the existence of more objects or concepts than necessary): Adding more 'things that exist' to your explanation than you actually need to; making your theory unnecessarily complicated by assuming more entities or concepts are real.
redundant(contrasting with what the formula should actually be): Unnecessary or repetitive—extra without serving a purpose, like having two copies of the same tool.
relational betweenness(describing spatial or logical positions relative to other objects): The relationship or position of something being in the middle of two other things—like how point B is 'between' points A and C on a line.
spatial parts(as used in metaphysics): Distinct pieces or sections of something that occupy different locations in space.

Connections

2 topics

Causation1 linked Perception1 linked

Betweenness being primitive does not explain *why* nothing lies between A and D—...Circularity objections assume relational betweenness requires definition rather ...

Details

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