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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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