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 principle of demonstration must be necessary, not merely true.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.John Stuart Mill argued that inductive generalizations from observed regularities constitute genuine scientific knowledge without appealing to metaphysical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If necessary truth is unavailable to empirical science yet empirical science yields genuine demonstrative knowledge, necessity cannot be a universal condition on demonstrative principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring necessity conflates logical or metaphysical modality with the epistemic conditions sufficient for scientific justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle himself acknowledges in Posterior Analytics II.8 that demonstration can proceed from contingent facts about natural kinds that hold 'for the most part'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If scientific demonstration can accommodate 'for the most part' truths about natural regularities, necessity is too strong a requirement for all demonstrative premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A necessary conclusion follows from necessary premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Demonstration requires necessary conclusions.
      ?

      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.