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 There are no propositions

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Easy Arguments against propositions are valid
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Certain attitude ascriptions are true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abstract entities face serious epistemological and identification problems
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment shows we quantify over sentence types, not abstract propositions, in successful semantic theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Churchland's eliminativist program demonstrates that folk-psychological posits like propositions can be replaced by neurophysiological state descriptions without explanatory loss.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If propositions were real, there would be a determinate fact about which proposition a belief token expresses, but Kripkenstein's rule-following paradox shows no such fact exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sellars's nominalism establishes that apparent reference to abstract objects dissolves under analysis into reference to linguistic roles and functional equivalence classes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hartry Field's fictionalism about mathematics provides a successful template: propositional talk is useful fiction, not ontological commitment to abstract entities.
      ?

      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.