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
    A proposition p is true if denying p would entail a fact ... — Carmelics
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A proposition p is true if denying p would entail a fact or truth with no sufficient reason.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?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.If p were false, there would exist some fact or truth for which there is no sufficient reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.By the PSR, every fact or truth has a sufficient reason.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore p cannot be false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant argued in the Critique of Pure Reason that the PSR is a regulative ideal of reason, not a constitutive truth about reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the PSR governs only how we systematize inquiry rather than how things are, denying p entailing an 'unreasoned fact' shows only an epistemic gap, not p's falsity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating the demand for explanation with metaphysical necessity commits the rationalist error Kant diagnosed as transcendent illusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The PSR itself lacks a sufficient reason for its own truth, making any inference from it viciously self-undermining (Hume, Enquiry XII).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A principle that cannot satisfy its own demands cannot serve as a foundational criterion for establishing the truth of other propositions.
      ?

      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

    Truth & Knowledge

    Related

    A principle that cannot satisfy its own demands cannot serve as a foundational c...By the PSR, every fact or truth has a sufficient reason.Conflating the demand for explanation with metaphysical necessity commits the ra...If p were false, there would exist some fact or truth for which there is no suff...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the PSR governs only how we systematize inquiry rather than how things are, d...Kant argued in the Critique of Pure Reason that the PSR is a regulative ideal of...The PSR itself lacks a sufficient reason for its own truth, making any inference...Therefore p cannot be false.

    Similar

    If p were false, there would exist some fact or truth for which there ...85%A proposition known to be false must be denied in disputation.85%Suppose the proposition that p is false85%The fact that a proposition appears true to us is not a valid logical ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: sufficient-reason
    View source passageHide passage
    Leibniz says that PSR is needed if we are to go beyond mathematics to metaphysics and natural science. How does the PSR help in those domains of inquiry? There is a general pattern of argument that Leibniz uses to establish conclusions using the PSR. First he assumes the falsity of what he wants to prove. Call the proposition to be proved p. Then he tries to show that if p were false, there would be some fact or truth for which there was no sufficient reason. But by the PSR, there is no fact or
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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