Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A counterexample that presupposes a contested property-individuation scheme does not establish a genuine logical gap between global and weak supervenience.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Valid counterexamples work regardless of property schemes; scheme-dependence shows the gap exists, not that it's illusory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Claiming contested assumptions invalidate counterexamples sets an unreasonably high bar—all philosophical arguments rely on some framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The relationship between global and weak supervenience is a mathematical fact independent of how we linguistically carve properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Property individuation schemes determine what counts as distinct properties; disagreement about schemes undermines counterexample clarity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A counterexample's force depends on its premises being uncontested; contested individuation makes the logical gap genuinely unclear.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without neutral property criteria, we cannot definitively separate logical from metaphysical claims about supervenience relations.
      ?

      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.