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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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