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 is little reason to prefer Ginsborg's partial reductionism over non-reductionism or reductionism

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Ginsborg's partial reductionism faces the same challenges raised against non-reductionism and reductionism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ginsborg's 'primitive normativity' posits a sui generis normative fact that is neither reduced nor fully explained, leaving the explanatory gap intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Boghossian's dilemma shows any account must either reduce normative facts or accept them as primitive; Ginsborg's middle path collapses into the latter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A position that inherits the costs of both reductionism and non-reductionism without gaining their respective advantages offers no net theoretical gain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's skeptical argument targets the very idea that any fact, partial or full, can constitute meaning; Ginsborg's partial reduction still invokes such constitutive facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If partial reduction cannot satisfy the normativity constraint Kripke identifies, it fails on the same grounds as full naturalistic reductions like dispositional accounts.
      ?

      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.