What is your answer?
Wyman reasons as follows: "I have no younger sister. However, it's possible (conceivable) that I would have had a younger sister. Therefore, there is a possible being who is my younger sister."
Quine objects to the last step (about possible beings) because
{ 1 } - it raises bizarre and unanswerable questions -- like "How much does this possible being weigh?" and "Exactly how many possible younger sisters do I have?"
{ 2 } - by introducing useless entities, it violates the principle that we should accept the simplest scheme that fits our experience.
{ 3 } - -- he raises both of these objections.
{ 4 } - -- actually, Quine thinks Wyman's reasoning is perfectly sound.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Wyman reasons as follows: "I have no younger sister. However, it's possible (conceivable) that I would have had a younger sister. Therefore, there is a possible being who is my younger sister."
Quine objects to the last step (about possible beings) because
{ 1 } - it raises bizarre and unanswerable questions -- like "How much does this possible being weigh?" and "Exactly how many possible younger sisters do I have?"
{ 2 } - by introducing useless entities, it violates the principle that we should accept the simplest scheme that fits our experience.
{ 3 } - -- he raises both of these objections.
{ 4 } - -- actually, Quine thinks Wyman's reasoning is perfectly sound.
Quine gives the other objection too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Wyman reasons as follows: "I have no younger sister. However, it's possible (conceivable) that I would have had a younger sister. Therefore, there is a possible being who is my younger sister."
Quine objects to the last step (about possible beings) because
{ 1 } - it raises bizarre and unanswerable questions -- like "How much does this possible being weigh?" and "Exactly how many possible younger sisters do I have?"
{ 2 } - by introducing useless entities, it violates the principle that we should accept the simplest scheme that fits our experience.
{ 3 } - -- he raises both of these objections.
{ 4 } - -- actually, Quine thinks Wyman's reasoning is perfectly sound.
Quine gives the other objection too.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Wyman reasons as follows: "I have no younger sister. However, it's possible (conceivable) that I would have had a younger sister. Therefore, there is a possible being who is my younger sister."
Quine objects to the last step (about possible beings) because
{ 1 } - it raises bizarre and unanswerable questions -- like "How much does this possible being weigh?" and "Exactly how many possible younger sisters do I have?"
{ 2 } - by introducing useless entities, it violates the principle that we should accept the simplest scheme that fits our experience.
{ 3 } - -- he raises both of these objections.
{ 4 } - -- actually, Quine thinks Wyman's reasoning is perfectly sound.
Quine gives both reasons not to add possible beings to our ontology.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Wyman reasons as follows: "I have no younger sister. However, it's possible (conceivable) that I would have had a younger sister. Therefore, there is a possible being who is my younger sister."
Quine objects to the last step (about possible beings) because
{ 1 } - it raises bizarre and unanswerable questions -- like "How much does this possible being weigh?" and "Exactly how many possible younger sisters do I have?"
{ 2 } - by introducing useless entities, it violates the principle that we should accept the simplest scheme that fits our experience.
{ 3 } - -- he raises both of these objections.
{ 4 } - -- actually, Quine thinks Wyman's reasoning is perfectly sound.
Huh?
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end