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 Water is essentially composed of H2O molecules, even though water as a liquid and H2O as a chemical formula are not co-extensive.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's modal essentialism applies to natural kind terms via rigid designation, but water's reference was fixed before H2O was discovered, making the necessity aposteriori rather than metaphysically grounded in composition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessity here is epistemic rather than metaphysical, then 'water is essentially H2O' is a strong empirical generalization, not a claim about the intrinsic nature of water across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dupré's promiscuous realism shows that natural kind boundaries are interest-relative, undermining the claim that H2O picks out a uniquely privileged essential structure rather than one useful scientific classification among many.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's twin earth argument presupposes semantic externalism, but internalists like Searle argue that reference is fixed by descriptive content, meaning XYZ could be 'water' if it plays the same functional role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the same functional and phenomenological role suffices for reference, then H2O composition is a contingent feature of our water, not an essential feature of water as such across all possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Putnam's argument establishes that necessarily all water is composed of H2O molecules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fact that H2O can exist as a solid or gas does not contradict the claim that water is necessarily composed of H2O.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The fact that a single H2O molecule lacks bulk properties like temperature does not contradict the claim that water is necessarily composed of H2O.
      ?

      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.