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 genuine counter-example to an inference rule must be defined in terms of presence ranges, not absence ranges

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In Navya-Nyāya epistemology, a counter-example (vyabhicāra) is defined by the co-absence of hetu and sādhya, making absence ranges logically prior to presence ranges in falsification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gaṅgeśa's Tattvacintāmaṇi establishes that pervasion (vyāpti) is undermined precisely when the reason is present alongside the confirmed absence of the probandum, not merely its non-presence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A definition of counter-example that excludes absence ranges cannot account for cases where partial location generates genuine epistemic defeat of the inference relation itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Mīmāṃsā principle of arthāpatti holds that inferential rules must be tested against all evidential contexts, including cases where absence is the primary epistemic datum.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a counter-example is restricted to presence ranges only, inference rules become unfalsifiable in domains where properties are known primarily through their absences, violating the Nyāya norm of testability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When properties are partially located, a property P has both a presence range (P+) and an absence range (P−) that may overlap
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A place where the reason property is present and the inferred property is absent but also present is not a real refutation of the inference
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only a case in the presence range of the reason property that falls outside the presence range of the inferred property constitutes a real counter-example
      ?

      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.