Resistance is defenseless

Interactive Transcript

spk_0 Okay, so today we're looking at a philosophical defense of big G grounding against key skeptical challenges

spk_0 mainly from Jessica Wilson. Right. A really robust piece arguing for groundings ongoing usefulness in metaphysics. Exactly.

spk_0 And what I found really effective right off the bat was how it turns the tables, arguing that you know specific

spk_0 small G relations also face this kind of informational indeterminacy. That counter argument is definitely a highlight.

spk_0 It's well executed. Yeah. But I did wonder if we could maybe amplify the initial challenge a bit first to really enhance engagement.

spk_0 The piece could perhaps intensify the stakes of Wilson's critique about big G grounding being informationally poor before launching that really effective counter defense.

spk_0 Ah, okay. So you're saying this setup could be stronger. Yeah, a little. I mean the weakness as I saw it is that the discussion moves pretty quickly to the counter argument.

spk_0 Hmm. And maybe Wilson's claim that a bear grounding claim tells us nothing about these really basic metaphysical questions like existence or reduction.

spk_0 Maybe that rhetorical force gets a bit understated before it's sort of set aside. Right. Like we don't quite feel the full weight of the accusation that grounding is metaphysically uninformative and explanatory

spk_0 superfluous before we see the response. Exactly. We sort of breeze past the potential crisis it represents for the grounding theorist.

spk_0 I see what you mean. If the problem doesn't feel truly serious, the solution doesn't feel quite as impactful. Maybe less essential.

spk_0 Precisely. So the suggestion would be to dedicate just a bit more space to vividly painting that picture of the, um, the informational vacuum that Wilson claims big G leaves.

spk_0 Make the reader feel that theoretical ground shifting of it. Yes. So that when the counter argument lands showing small G relations have similar issues,

spk_0 it feels like a bigger accomplishment, a real rescue. Okay. That makes sense. We need to internalize that potential panic Wilson describes the idea that, you know, without this extra info, our metaphysical theories are kind of rudderless.

spk_0 So for a concrete example, when we first introduced Wilson's challenge about what grounding doesn't tell us. Yeah. We could maybe emphasize the implications more sharply. Like, okay, if you just rely on big G, does that tell you whether you should be say,

spk_0 a meteorological nihilist versus someone who accepts composite objects. Right. Does it give you the resources to make that distinction. Wilson's point is that it doesn't and that lack of information could be framed as a really crucial barrier.

spk_0 So there's a risk that focusing only on big G might make you overlook these vital theoretical commitments needed to tell those positions apart. Exactly that. Feel that gap first. Make the reader think, oh, wow. Yeah. How do we answer that with just big G?

spk_0 And maybe before the desk example, the wine contrasting parts in the hole. Uh-huh. The myrological part hood one. We could explicitly take a bear claim like the disposition of a sphere to roll is grounded in its shape and then really spell out what specific explanatory job it fails to do according to Wilson.

spk_0 Like its causal efficacy, perhaps show how the bear big G claim leaves that fuzzy. Yeah. So the reader feels the need for that extra detail that supposedly small G relations provide.

spk_0 Before we then show that well, actually even though small G relations aren't a magic bullet for informational determinacy, it sets up the problem introduces a potential fix and then cleverly defends the original concept by showing the fix isn't perfect either.

spk_0 Okay, I like that. Creating that stronger sense of need upfront definitely makes the subsequent defense feel more earned. Right. So assuming we've now properly established that need, let's move to the defense itself.

spk_0 Section 5, tackling the unity argument pivots to that genus species model. Very interesting stuff. It is a really smart move. Yeah.

spk_0 Rejecting formal unity, this idea that all the small G's need the same logical features like a symmetry or whatever. And instead arguing for a conceptual unity.

spk_0 Totally agree. But um, thinking about the flow there, the material could maybe strengthen the connection, the logical bridge between rejecting the formal unification and proposing the form of the object.

spk_0 And then proposing the genus species model. Okay, explain that a bit more. Where's the weakness? Well, the argument effectively shows that the small G relations are formally all over the place, right?

spk_0 It gives counter examples to things like irreflexivity, asymmetry, transitivity. Right. Showing they don't share a neat set of logical axioms. Exactly. But then it feels like we jump quite quickly to asserting that the unity must therefore lie in this genus species relationship.

spk_0 As a reader, I felt I had to make a bit of a cognitive leap there. Ah, I see. From formal axioms fail to therefore it must be this conceptual genus species thing. The link isn't explicitly drawn. Yeah, it needs a bit more of a signpost.

spk_0 So the suggestion is simply to make that transition a really deliberate argumentative step. How so? Frame the failure of formal unity as the reason, the precondition, that forces us to look for a different kind of unity, this deeper conceptual kind.

spk_0 Okay, so it reinforces the idea that we're looking for unity, just not the formal kind. We need some kind and since formal fails, we turn to conceptual.

spk_0 Precisely. So for instance, after discussing how the small g's are formally disparate, you could insert a clear connective phrase, something like given that shared axioms fail to unify the small g relations, we are therefore forced to look beyond mere logic for a conceptual justification for the genus.

spk_0 That makes the shift feel necessary, not just asserted. Right. And then when the proposed genus is introduced, a directed relation of generative non-causal determination,

spk_0 you explicitly frame that as the core conceptual feature that holds steady.

spk_0 Even while the specific small g relations, the species differ in their details, like functional realization versus spatial temporal coincidence and so on.

spk_0 Exactly. The differentiate vary, but the core conceptual genus remains. It makes the genus species model feel like the logical next step once formal unity is off the table.

spk_0 Okay, yeah. Sharpening that pivot makes the overall argument much tighter. Definitely.

spk_0 Which brings us to the final point and it's won the author themselves flags as a potential issue. The core defense, this genus species model, faces what's called a troubling objection in the conclusion.

spk_0 Right. The ontological priority problem. If the genus species relation is itself often seen as a grounding relation.

spk_0 Then big g grounding, the genus, might end up being grounded in the specific small g relations, the species, which would be bad. Very bad for the theory.

spk_0 Extremely bad. Because the whole point is that big g is the unifying arguably more fundamental concept. So this is a critical point.

spk_0 The material's most sophisticated argument needs a more aggressive, more developed defense against this self-identified troubling objection.

spk_0 And the weakness right now is that the current responses feel a bit tentative. Especially the second one.

spk_0 Yeah, they are tentative. The author admits there's no ready answer. The first response is okay, but the second one, which relies on the possibility that the genus could be ontologically prior to the species, that needs more muscle.

spk_0 It leans heavily on biological classifications, which might be seen as controversial or just not analogous enough for metaphysics.

spk_0 Exactly. So the suggestion here is clear that second defensive strategy, arguing for the ontological priority of the genus, has to be developed further.

spk_0 We need stronger illustrations, probably outside biology, showing the philosophical coherence of a general concept being metaphysically prior to its specific instances.

spk_0 Okay, so move beyond just saying it could be prior. We need to make a stronger case for why it is, or at least can plausibly be argued to be prior in this metaphysical context.

spk_0 Yes. Build on that point. Instead of just biological examples, what if we looked at it through the lens of abstract concepts themselves? Maybe something like determination?

spk_0 How would that work?

spk_0 Well, could we argue that the specific small g instances like functional realization or mereological composition or truth making can only even be recognized as kinds of determination relations because they are partly grounded in the more general concept of big g grounding?

spk_0 Ah, so you're suggesting a conceptual dependence that implies ontological priority. The general concept makes the specific instances intelligible as instances of that concept.

spk_0 Kind of, yes. It uses a metaphysical dependence claim to argue for the priority of the genus. It puts big g conceptually and therefore perhaps ontologically first. It makes the genus the condition for identifying the species as species of that genus.

spk_0 That feels much more robust than just saying it's possible. It's a more direct metaphysical argument.

spk_0 And crucially, we should also probably reinforce the point made briefly that if the genus species relation is just another small g relation, it doesn't automatically establish its own directionality.

spk_0 Right. The objector can't just assume the species grounds the genus just because it's a genus species relation.

spk_0 Exactly. That pushes the burden of proof back onto the skeptic. They need to show why in this specific metaphysical case, the genus must be derived from the species.

spk_0 Why should we assume bottom up priority here?

spk_0 Okay, that makes sense. Don't just defend against the objection but actually turn it around a bit by questioning its core assumption about directionality.

spk_0 If that point about ontological priority is short up using maybe more abstract or conceptual examples that self-admitted troubling objection loses a lot of its sting, it really strengthens the whole structure.

spk_0 Okay, great. So just to wrap up the critique then, this is clearly a very strong, sophisticated piece.

spk_0 Defending big B grounding. Absolutely. It's doing important work.

spk_0 But we think its impact can be boosted with basically three key adjustments.

spk_0 Right. First, really dial up the rhetorical stakes of Wilson's initial critique. Make the reader feel that informational vacuum before presenting the counter arguments.

spk_0 Make the problem feel bigger so the solution feels more necessary.

spk_0 Second, sharpen that logical pivot in the unity argument. Make the move from rejecting formal unity to embracing conceptual genus species unity feel like an explicit unavoidable step.

spk_0 Exactly. Show the logical pathway clearly. And third, and maybe most critically, proactively fortify the defense against that troubling objection about ontological priority.

spk_0 Develop that argument for the priority at the genus over the species more fully. Maybe use non-biological more abstract examples to show its metaphysical plausibility.

spk_0 Turn that acknowledged vulnerability into a real strength by resolving it head on. Don't just concede its troubling show why it's ultimately not fatal, perhaps even based on a misunderstanding of the dependence relation involved.

spk_0 In the end, implement those changes, dramatizing the initial gap, sharpening the pivot, and fully developing the ontological priority defense. And this already strong argument becomes even more persuasive, I think.

spk_0 Agreed. It moves from a strong defense to one that feels much more complete and resilient.

spk_0 Excellent. Well, we strongly encourage the listener to work through these suggestions. We think that it'll make a significant difference. And we'd absolutely love to see the revised material when it's ready.

spk_0 Please do submit it back to us.

Resistance is defenseless

Interactive Transcript

Topics Covered

Related Episodes

Out on a Limb | Nov 2nd | Hillhurst United Church

How Do You Respond to Jesus? John 5:16–47 :Daily Devotional, Daily Bible Study

Episode 240: Otto Aerospace CEO Paul Touw talks teardrop, laminar flow, and Phantom 3500

Burnout, Breakthroughs, and the Power of Getting Back Outdoors | Gun Talk Hunt

Share Episode