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 posited truthmaker for negative truths—such as totality facts or absences—is ontologically more problematic than the original commitment to correspondence warrants.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All truthmaker theories—positive or negative—require some posited entities; rejecting negative truthmakers doesn't reduce overall ontological cost.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absences and totality facts are no more problematic than positive facts; both appear equally real and neither deserves special skepticism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without truthmakers for negative truths, correspondence theory becomes incoherent about what makes 'There is no gold here' actually true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Totality facts and absence entities multiply ontological commitments beyond what negative truths require for semantic adequacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Correspondence theory's minimal burden is explaining how truths relate to reality, not postulating exotic entities to ground negations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Simpler theories without negative truthmakers (like semantic or pragmatic approaches) adequately account for negative truths' logical behavior.
      ?

      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.