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
    Van Inwagen's argument against the well-definability of c... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Van Inwagen's argument against the well-definability of cohesion may be resisted by fixing paradigm cases of non-living complexes and identifying cohesion with whatever bonding holds in those cases.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's causal-historical semantics grounds reference in initial baptism events, not prior descriptive criteria, making paradigm-fixing semantically primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'water' picks out H2O via paradigm samples without antecedent chemical definitions, 'cohesion' can similarly pick out covalent/ionic bonding via paradigm composites.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The objection that cohesion lacks definitional tidiness proves too much, since it would equally undermine natural kind terms before their underlying science was articulated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reflective equilibrium methodology, as deployed by Rawls and extended by Goodman, permits concepts to be refined by iterating between paradigm cases and theoretical principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Inwagen's demand for prior well-definability before ontological deployment sets an impossibly high standard that no ostensively grounded concept could satisfy at the outset.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's natural kinds strategy fixes paradigm cases and identifies the kind by whatever underlying nature those cases share.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A similar strategy applied to non-living composites would define the required cohesion as whatever bonding relation holds in paradigm cases of such composites.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is likely a reasonably tidy scientific account of how atoms bond in such cases.
      ?

      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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Key Terms

    bonding(what creates cohesion between parts of an object)
    The physical connection or force that holds separate pieces together—like glue, welding, or gravity.
    cohesion(Mereology and the special composition question)
    The binding relation among parts that is supposed to constitute atoms into composite objects; candidates include contact, fastening, adhesion, and fusion.
    non-living complexes(examples used to understand what cohesion means)
    Objects made up of multiple parts that are not alive—like a table, a car, or a pile of rocks.
    paradigm cases(used to explain how we define concepts)
    The clearest, most obvious examples of something that help us understand what that thing is—like using a robin as the paradigm case of a bird.
    van Inwagen(as a philosopher being cited as a necessitarian)
    Peter van Inwagen is a contemporary American philosopher who studies questions about what exists, what it means to exist, and whether God must exist.
    well-definability(describing whether 'cohesion' can be clearly defined)
    The quality of having a clear, precise definition that works in all cases without confusion or ambiguity.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedCausation1 linked

    Related

    A similar strategy applied to non-living composites would define the required co...If 'water' picks out H2O via paradigm samples without antecedent chemical defini...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: substance
    View source passageHide passage
    Van Inwagen’s main argument is that necessary and sufficient (particularly sufficient) conditions cannot be given for the kind of cohesion of parts that is supposed to bind atoms into complexes. None of the standard candidates—contact, fastening, adhesion, fusion, nor any acceptable disjunction of them—will suffice. They all have counterexamples. So the notion cannot be well defined. The arguments are subtle and interesting. The question might be raised whether van Inwagen gives sufficient consi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Kripke's causal-historical semantics grounds reference in initial baptism events...
    Putnam's natural kinds strategy fixes paradigm cases and identifies the kind by ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Reflective equilibrium methodology, as deployed by Rawls and extended by Goodman...The objection that cohesion lacks definitional tidiness proves too much, since i...There is likely a reasonably tidy scientific account of how atoms bond in such c...Van Inwagen's demand for prior well-definability before ontological deployment s...

    Similar

    A similar strategy applied to non-living composites would define the r...83%The notion of cohesion that binds atoms into composite non-living obje...82%Necessary and sufficient conditions for the cohesion of parts that bin...80%The standard candidates for such cohesion—contact, fastening, adhesion...78%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit