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 structural equation model account of grounding must inc... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A structural equation model account of grounding must include counterpossibles

    Causation
    ?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.Grounding relations hold not merely across all possible scenarios but across scenarios that are metaphysically impossible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any adequate model of grounding must represent these counterpossible cases
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structural equation models already capture grounding asymmetry and transitivity without invoking impossible worlds, per Schaffer's priority monism framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Counterpossibles, on the Williamson-Brogaard vacuism view, are trivially true and thus add no discriminating explanatory power to any formal model.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A model that includes vacuously true conditionals cannot distinguish genuine grounding structure from arbitrary metaphysical noise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fine's truthmaker semantics handles hyperintensional grounding contexts through exact verification, not through impossible-worlds quantification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If grounding can be adequately modeled hyperintensionally without counterpossibles, their inclusion in structural equation models is explanatorily idle.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Related

    A model that includes vacuously true conditionals cannot distinguish genuine gro...Any adequate model of grounding must represent these counterpossible casesCounterpossibles, on the Williamson-Brogaard vacuism view, are trivially true an...Fine's truthmaker semantics handles hyperintensional grounding contexts through ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Grounding relations hold not merely across all possible scenarios but across sce...If grounding can be adequately modeled hyperintensionally without counterpossibl...Structural equation models already capture grounding asymmetry and transitivity ...

    Similar

    Any adequate model of grounding must represent these counterpossible c...88%The grounding theorist must countenance counterpossibles, not merely a...82%Structural equation models cannot adequately represent grounding and m...81%Separatists about grounding explanation owe an account of how the link...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: metaphysical-explanation
    View source passageHide passage
    Against the account, a couple of things can and have been said. First, just as there are important analogies between grounding and causation (of the ordinary, run-of-the mill sort: §1), there are disanalogies as well. This is accepted by both friends and foes of the view. The question then is whether those differences are serious enough to undermine the work the analogy does in the account (proponents of the account, not surprisingly don’t think so; for some who do: see, e.g., Bernstein 2016,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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