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 mechanism that fails to explain the far more common outcome of non-violence cannot serve as the primary explanation for the rare cases of violence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rare outcomes can have sufficient but non-universal causes; jet engines rarely fail but mechanical stress still explains failures when they occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates explaining frequency with explaining causation; explaining violence doesn't require explaining all non-violence instances equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Context-sensitivity matters: a factor causing violence in specific conditions needn't explain why it's dormant elsewhere—incomplete explanation isn't false explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Explanatory mechanisms must account for base rates; theories explaining rare outcomes often misidentify causal factors by ignoring prevalence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If mechanism X fails in 99% of similar cases, attributing rare outcomes to X suggests X is neither necessary nor sufficient for those outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Adequate explanation requires showing why the mechanism activates selectively; absence of this distinction indicates incomplete causal theory.
      ?

      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.