Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Bigelow I 89
Structural universals/Peter Forrest/Bigelow/Pargetter: (similar to our higher level relations): Forrest: thesis: there is a quasi-mereological n-part operation that takes n quasi-parts and assembles them into a quasi-whole:

Operation ‹a1,…an› = an+1.

Bigelow/Pargetter: that is equivalent to the fact that we have a (n+1)-digit relation:

R(a1,…an, an+1).

BigelowVsForrest: our differences lie in the fact that we do not accept the quasi-mereology.
>Mereology, >Parts, >Whole, >Mereological Sum, >J. Bigelow.

Entailments/VsBigelow: one could object that we have explained the entailments between 1st level properties by appeal to higher level properties.
>Entailment.
In doing so, we have practically assumed that there are also entailments between them (this is circular).
I 90
Bsp
Necessary (being methane R (being carbon)

Entailment: then because of this relation the entailment is valid, between the methane-being of something and the fact that this thing has a part which is carbon:

(I) Necessarily, for any F and G, if (F) R (G), then every instance of F has a part that is an instance of G.

The principle (I) involves necessity. This must be grounded in the essence of universals to avoid modal basic concepts. But is not the appeal to essences itself modal (and modal magic)?
>Essence, >Modality, >Necessity, >Modal Logic.
BigelowVsVs: yes and no. We all need a little magic sometimes. But this is white magic. You just argue sometimes about what is white and what is black.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.