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
    Any argument of the B1 form that makes irreducible modal ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Doubts about the existence of non-actual possible worlds cast doubt on C1 but not on B1

    Any argument of the B1 form that makes irreducible modal claims cannot escape the ontological commitments that generate skepticism about C1, since both require modal truthmakers.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.B1 arguments rely on modal claims (possibility, necessity) that require truthmakers to avoid vacuity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.C1 skepticism arises precisely from the difficulty of grounding modal truthmakers in a physicalist ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any framework accepting irreducible modality must posit entities beyond the physical, generating the same commitment problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.B1 arguments may appeal to modal claims without requiring truthmakers; they could be instrumentalist or anti-realist about modality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.C1 skepticism targets specific modal truthmakers (abstract objects), not modality itself; other groundings avoid the worry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Irreducible modal claims in B1 might be brute logical facts, requiring no ontological commitment beyond logical structure.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Any framework accepting irreducible modality must posit entities beyond the phys...B1 arguments may appeal to modal claims without requiring truthmakers; they coul...B1 arguments rely on modal claims (possibility, necessity) that require truthmak...C1 skepticism arises precisely from the difficulty of grounding modal truthmaker...
    +3 moreShow less
    C1 skepticism targets specific modal truthmakers (abstract objects), not modalit...Doubts about the existence of non-actual possible worlds cast doubt on C1 but no...Irreducible modal claims in B1 might be brute logical facts, requiring no ontolo...

    Details

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