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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The theory conception and object conception of the physical are best understood as ways of understanding the notion of the physical, not as reductive analyses.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hempel's dilemma shows that 'physical' must be defined by a specific theory or face vacuity, demanding more than mere 'ways of understanding'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the theory conception merely gestures at physics without fixing reference, it cannot distinguish physical from non-physical properties in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A notion that resists reductive analysis but still does explanatory work in physicalism commits the deflationist to an unexplained primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strawson and Levine argue that without a reductive account of 'physical', physicalism becomes trivially true by absorbing any ontology it encounters.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-reductive 'way of understanding' the physical lacks the normative bite needed to rule out panpsychist or dualist ontologies as non-physical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is no reason to suppose that the theory or object conception provides anything other than a way of understanding the notion of the physical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Concepts can be legitimately understood without reductive analysis.
      ?

      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.