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
    Understanding the notion of change requires understanding... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Understanding the notion of change requires understanding the notion of a projectible predicate appropriate for use in science, which inevitably brings in the notion of law.

    CausationPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Change is closely tied to the notion of causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.To understand causation and change, one must understand which predicates are projectible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Projectible predicates are those appropriate for use in science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nelson Goodman's grue paradox shows projectibility is determined by entrenchment in linguistic practice, not by lawlike status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Entrenchment is a matter of historical usage patterns, not nomological necessity, so projectibility need not invoke laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, understanding change via projectible predicates does not inevitably require invoking the notion of law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian accounts of change invoke substantial form and actuality-potentiality distinctions without appeal to covering laws.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These metaphysical categories ground intelligible change prior to and independently of any nomological framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If pre-Humean traditions coherently explain change without laws, then invoking laws is sufficient but not necessary for understanding change.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Aristotelian accounts of change invoke substantial form and actuality-potentiali...Change is closely tied to the notion of causation.Entrenchment is a matter of historical usage patterns, not nomological necessity...If pre-Humean traditions coherently explain change without laws, then invoking l...
    +6 moreShow less
    Nelson Goodman's grue paradox shows projectibility is determined by entrenchment...Projectible predicates are those appropriate for use in science.Scientific predicates inevitably bring in the notion of law.Therefore, understanding change via projectible predicates does not inevitably r...These metaphysical categories ground intelligible change prior to and independen...To understand causation and change, one must understand which predicates are pro...

    Similar

    The notion of 'change' presupposes the notion of 'law', meaning someth...89%The notion of 'change' is theory-dependent and presupposes the notion ...88%The argument establishes a connection between change and lawlike predi...88%Davidson argues that changes are described by predicates suitable for ...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    Returning to the first point about predicate-individuation, Davidson claims that “it is just the predicates which are projectible, the predicates that enter into valid inductions, that determine what counts as a change” (Davidson 1995a, 272). We know from Nelson Goodman’s ‘new riddle of induction’ (Goodman 1983) that we can invent predicates, such as ‘grue’ and ‘bleen’ (where an object is grue if it is green and examined before 2020 or otherwise blue, and an object is bleen if it is blue and exa
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit