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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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