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 Yet Devitt's ostrich nominalism must still account for why distinct predicate tokens 'F', 'F', 'F' apply to the same objects—a sameness that is not itself expressible without quantifying over a shared feature.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ostrich nominalism can ground predicate sameness in brute physical similarity relations without quantifying over abstract shared features.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates *explaining* sameness with *requiring* an entity; ostrich nominalism denies that explanation requires ontological commitment here.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quantification over linguistic patterns or behavioral dispositions avoids the regress without invoking properties nominalism rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Predicate tokens succeed in applying to the same objects only if they share an application condition, which requires explaining sameness non-nominally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ostrich nominalism avoids commitment to abstract objects but must explain predicate identity through concrete facts, creating a theoretical burden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The problem reveals that nominalism cannot fully escape reference to properties without circularity or regress in explaining repeated predication.
      ?

      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.