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
    A proposition must be denied as incompatibly relevant if ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A proposition must be denied as incompatibly relevant if it is incompatible with the positum together with a proposition that would be true if the positum were true.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Incompatible relevance is determined by what is consistent with the positum under counterfactual conditions, not by the sequence of prior answers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The revised rules require all answers to reflect how things could possibly be if the positum were true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The medieval responsio tradition (Burley's antiqua responsio) grounds relevance in the actual sequence of conceded propositions, not counterfactual worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Introducing counterfactual truth-conditions imports modal realist assumptions foreign to the obligationes framework's original dialectical purpose.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition incompatible with prior concessions should be denied on those grounds alone, without appeal to what 'would be true' under hypothetical conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Swyneshed's nova responsio already demonstrated that sequentially grounding relevance produces paradoxes, but his solution decouples answers from consistency chains entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Replacing sequence-dependence with counterfactual-dependence merely relocates the problem: it requires a determinate account of which possible world the positum picks out.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Indeterminate or impossible posita—standard in obligationes practice—resist any coherent counterfactual evaluation, rendering the revised rule inapplicable in core cases.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    A proposition incompatible with prior concessions should be denied on those grou...Incompatible relevance is determined by what is consistent with the positum unde...Indeterminate or impossible posita—standard in obligationes practice—resist any ...Introducing counterfactual truth-conditions imports modal realist assumptions fo...
    +4 moreShow less
    Replacing sequence-dependence with counterfactual-dependence merely relocates th...Swyneshed's nova responsio already demonstrated that sequentially grounding rele...The medieval responsio tradition (Burley's antiqua responsio) grounds relevance ...The revised rules require all answers to reflect how things could possibly be if...

    Similar

    A proposition irrelevant to the positum alone must be granted if it is...87%A conjunction of two propositions may be incompatible with the positum...85%A proposition must be granted as sequentially relevant if it follows f...84%Burley's rule that any false proposition compossible with the positum ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: obligationes
    View source passageHide passage
    An anonymous treatise De arte obligatoria probably from the 1330s (edited and translated from a Merton College manuscript in Kretzmann & Stump 1985) seems to develop a central aspect of Kilvington’s suggestion into a complete set of rules for obligational disputations. Just like Kilvington, the anonymous author thought that in an obligational disputation the order of the propositions ought not influence the answers. The core change to Burley’s rules is that rules 5. and 6. above are revised
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit