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 Any attempt by Lipton or Lycan to treat 'loveliness' as a probability-boosting factor beyond likelihood ratios generates violations of the ratio formula for conditional probability, as Salmon's confirmation theory makes explicit.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Salmon's ratio formula applies only to narrow comparative likelihood questions, not to broader epistemic virtues like explanatory power that operate at different levels.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Loveliness' factors may function as constraints on *which* hypotheses enter the likelihood ratio calculation, rather than as independent probability-boosters, avoiding violation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge of violation assumes Lipton/Lycan endorse Salmon's framework as exhaustive; they may reject his assumptions about confirmation's mathematical closure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Salmon's ratio formula requires P(E|H)/P(E|¬H) as the sole confirmation metric; any additional factors mathematically violate this constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lipton and Lycan treat explanatory 'loveliness' as independent of likelihood ratios, creating a second confirmation dimension that the formula cannot accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Probability theory is formally closed under its axioms; introducing non-ratio factors necessarily generates inconsistency with Bayesian conditionalization.
      ?

      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.