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
    Assigning support value 1 to contingent statements on eve... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Assigning support value 1 to contingent statements on every possible premise makes inductive logic enthymematic.

    Skepticism
    ?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.Assigning support value 1 to a contingent statement C on every possible premise hides significant premises in inductive support relationships.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An enthymematic argument is one whose validity depends on unstated or hidden premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hiding significant premises in support relationships is analogous to permitting deductive arguments to count as valid when explicitly stated premises are insufficient to entail the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's confirmation theory treats logical truths and tautologies as receiving support value 1 as a matter of semantic necessity, not hidden premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A statement receiving maximal confirmation across all evidence contexts reflects its logical or analytic status, not enthymematic reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rudolf Carnap explicitly distinguished between logical probability grounded in meaning postulates and empirical inductive support, making the 'hidden premise' charge a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a Bayesian framework, prior probability 1 assigned to a contingent statement C is a coherent idealization reflecting an agent's incorrigible commitment, not a suppressed premise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Popper and Miller's objection to inductive logic targets the logic itself, not its enthymematic structure, suggesting the charge of hidden premises misdiagnoses the actual problem.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    A statement receiving maximal confirmation across all evidence contexts reflects...An enthymematic argument is one whose validity depends on unstated or hidden pre...Assigning support value 1 to a contingent statement C on every possible premise ...Carnap's confirmation theory treats logical truths and tautologies as receiving ...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hiding significant premises in support relationships is analogous to permitting ...On a Bayesian framework, prior probability 1 assigned to a contingent statement ...Popper and Miller's objection to inductive logic targets the logic itself, not i...Rudolf Carnap explicitly distinguished between logical probability grounded in m...

    Similar

    Assigning support value 1 to a contingent statement C on every possibl...90%The purpose of inductive logic is to provide a measure of the extent t...82%A logic that allows no evidence against a contingent statement fails t...80%Inductive logic should not presuppose the truth of contingent statemen...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-inductive
    View source passageHide passage
    One important respect in which inductive logic should follow the deductive paradigm is that the logic should not presuppose the truth of contingent statements. If a statement C is contingent, then some other statements should be able to count as evidence against C. Otherwise, a support function \(P_{\alpha}\) will take C and all of its logical consequences to be supported to degree 1 by all possible evidence claims. This is no way for an inductive logic to behave. The whole idea of inductive log
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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