In Defense of Comparability: Reply to Carlson and Risberg

Noûs Pub Date : 2026-03-11 DOI:10.1111/nous.70040

Cian Dorr, Jacob M. Nebel, Jake Zuehl

{"title":"In Defense of Comparability: Reply to Carlson and Risberg","authors":"Cian Dorr, Jacob M. Nebel, Jake Zuehl","doi":"10.1111/nous.70040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In “The Case for Comparability,” we argue that every comparative expression “<math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0001\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0001.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>F</mi>\n$F$</annotation>\n</semantics></math>” obeys Comparability: if two things are at least as <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0002\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0002.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>F</mi>\n$F$</annotation>\n</semantics></math> as themselves, then one of them must be at least as <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0003\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0003.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>F</mi>\n$F$</annotation>\n</semantics></math> as the other. One of our arguments appeals to the apparent validity of the Strong Monotonicity schema: <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0004\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0004.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>x</mi>\n$x$</annotation>\n</semantics></math> is <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0005\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0005.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>F</mi>\n$F$</annotation>\n</semantics></math>; <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0006\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0006.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>y</mi>\n$y$</annotation>\n</semantics></math> is not <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0007\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0007.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>F</mi>\n$F$</annotation>\n</semantics></math>; so, <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0008\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0008.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>x</mi>\n$x$</annotation>\n</semantics></math> is more <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0009\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0009.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>F</mi>\n$F$</annotation>\n</semantics></math> than <math altimg=\"urn:x-wiley:00294624:media:nous70040:nous70040-math-0010\" display=\"inline\" location=\"graphic/nous70040-math-0010.png\">\n<semantics>\n<mi>y</mi>\n$y$</annotation>\n</semantics></math>. In a recent reply to our paper, Erik Carlson and Olle Risberg claim that this argument is not valid, that it begs the question, and that the appearances favoring Strong Monotonicity—at least, for the adjective “good”—can be explained away. This paper defends our argument against these objections.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Noûs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In “The Case for Comparability,” we argue that every comparative expression “

F $F$

” obeys Comparability: if two things are at least as

F $F$

as themselves, then one of them must be at least as

F $F$

as the other. One of our arguments appeals to the apparent validity of the Strong Monotonicity schema:

x $x$

F $F$

;

y $y$

is not

F $F$

; so,

x $x$

is more

F $F$

than

y $y$

. In a recent reply to our paper, Erik Carlson and Olle Risberg claim that this argument is not valid, that it begs the question, and that the appearances favoring Strong Monotonicity—at least, for the adjective “good”—can be explained away. This paper defends our argument against these objections.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为可比性辩护：回复卡尔森和里斯伯格

在“可比性案例”中，我们论证了每一个比较表达式“F$F$”都服从可比性：如果两个事物至少和它们自己一样F$F$，那么其中一个必须至少和另一个一样F$F$。我们的一个论点诉诸于强单调性模式的明显有效性：x$x$是F$F$；y$y$不是F$F$；所以，x$x$比F$F$大。在最近对我们论文的回复中，Erik Carlson和Olle Risberg声称这个论点是无效的，它回避了这个问题，并且倾向于强单调性的表象——至少，对于形容词“好”来说——可以被解释掉。本文为我们反对这些反对意见的论点进行了辩护。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Noûs

自引率

0.00%

发文量