Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A classification system that admits partial truth without specifying a principled demarcation criterion cannot coherently rank myths as 'false on the whole'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Demarcation criteria exist implicitly in most contexts (e.g., practical utility, explanatory power) without requiring formal specification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many coherent classifications operate with vague boundaries—'tall person' ranks without defining exact height thresholds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Myths can be ranked as 'false on the whole' via comparative standards: they explain less, predict worse, or contain more errors than alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Without explicit demarcation criteria, 'false on the whole' becomes arbitrary—applied inconsistently across similar cases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Partial truth admits degrees, so ranking requires principled thresholds distinguishing 'mostly true' from 'false on the whole'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Coherence demands consistency: if we allow partial truth, the criteria for overall falsity must be publicly specifiable, not intuitive.
?
How convincing is this?
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.