Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Therefore, 'Is X good?' remaining open is compatible with 'good' being analytically identical to a naturalistic predicate unknown to speakers.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Analytical truths are true by definition; if speakers can't recognize the definition of 'good', it seems definitionally unavailable, not just unknown.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The water/H2O case involved discovering structure within a known substance; 'good' remaining open suggests the concept itself stays indeterminate in meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Persistent conceptual openness across competent speakers typically indicates meaning gaps, not hidden identities awaiting empirical discovery.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Analytical identity doesn't require speakers know the identity; water = H2O was unknown to pre-scientific speakers yet analytically true.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The open question argument assumes speakers have epistemic access to meaning, but meanings can be hidden even for fundamental concepts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If 'good' is analytically identical to a natural property, that property's criteria could be empirically discoverable rather than conceptually obvious.
?
How convincing is this?
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.