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
    A defense requires only logical possibility, not epistemi... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The story involved in a defense must be one that is likely to be true.

    A defense requires only logical possibility, not epistemic probability, since its sole purpose is defeating a modal claim about incompatibility.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Modal logic concerns what is possible, not what is probable. Logical possibility is the correct standard for evaluating modal claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A defense succeeds if it shows incompatibility claims are false. Showing logical possibility suffices to falsify necessity claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring epistemic probability conflates metaphysical questions with epistemological ones, shifting the burden inappropriately.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Merely logically possible scenarios may be so improbable they're epistemically irrelevant to actual philosophical disputes about compatibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defenses in philosophy often aim to show positions are rationally defensible, not just technically consistent—probability matters for rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates defeating a modal claim with adequately addressing substantive objections requiring realistic, not merely logical, scenarios.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Problem of Evil1 linked

    Related

    A defense succeeds if it shows incompatibility claims are false. Showing logical...Defenses in philosophy often aim to show positions are rationally defensible, no...Merely logically possible scenarios may be so improbable they're epistemically i...Modal logic concerns what is possible, not what is probable. Logical possibility...
    +3 moreShow less
    Requiring epistemic probability conflates metaphysical questions with epistemolo...The claim conflates defeating a modal claim with adequately addressing substanti...The story involved in a defense must be one that is likely to be true.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit