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 structural equation model account of grounding must include counterpossibles

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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