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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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