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 worry raised by Laudan's argument can be rephrased in terms of the mistaken ontologies of past theories from later perspectives

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structural realism preserves mathematical relations across theory change even when ontological posits are radically revised or abandoned.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Laudan's pessimistic induction targets entity-level ontology, which structural realists explicitly do not commit to as the locus of scientific success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If realist commitment is cashed out in structural rather than entity terms, mistaken ontologies of past theories do not constitute refutations of realism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kitcher and Psillos distinguish idle posits from working posits, arguing only the latter genuinely explain predictive success.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical theories with mistaken ontologies often succeeded via working posits that were retained or approximated in successor theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reformulating realism around working posits dissolves Laudan's challenge without requiring retreat to purely ontology-neutral definitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Realism may be defined in terms of scientific ontology rather than reference and truth
      ?

      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.