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
    Chunk and Permeate derives conclusions by fragmenting pre... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Chunk and Permeate belongs to the context of discovery rather than the context of justification

    Chunk and Permeate derives conclusions by fragmenting premises into separate consistent chunks rather than reasoning from all premises together

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Chunk and Permeate belongs to the context of discovery rather than the context o...If one believes all the premises equally, an argument appealing to all premises ...To believe a conclusion obtained via Chunk and Permeate, one should believe all ...

    Similar

    To believe a conclusion obtained via Chunk and Permeate, one should be...82%Logical consequence requires the conclusion to follow from the premise...80%The argument with premises K={'∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)', 'N0'} and conclusion X='¬...80%The combining of premises immediately prior to conclusion is called 'p...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mathematics-inconsistent
    View source passageHide passage
    Recently, an alternative technique for dealing generally with contradictions has emerged. Brown and Priest (2004) have proposed a technique they call “Chunk and Permeate”, in which reasoning from inconsistent premisses proceeds by separating the assumptions into consistent theories (chunks), deriving appropriate consequences, then passing (permeating) those consequences to a different chunk for further consequences to be derived. They suggest that Newton’s original reasoning in taking derivates

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective