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
    Combining the derivation view with the claim that proposi... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Combining the derivation view with the claim that proposition (14) is necessary and a posteriori leads to a contradiction.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.On the derivation view, necessary a posteriori truths can be derived a priori from truths which are a posteriori and contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the derivation view is correct, then there is some contingent and a posteriori statement S# that logically entails proposition (14).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If S# logically entails (14), then by logical equivalence ('If C, then if A then B' is equivalent to 'If C & A, then B'), a further statement can be inferred that is both necessary and a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Truth & Knowledge

    Related

    A statement that is both necessary and a priori would contradict the a posterior...If S# logically entails (14), then by logical equivalence ('If C, then if A then...If the derivation view is correct, then there is some contingent and a posterior...On the derivation view, necessary a posteriori truths can be derived a priori fr...

    Similar

    If the derivation view is correct, then there is some contingent and a...87%Proposition (14) is not a necessary a posteriori truth, contradicting ...84%On the derivation view, necessary a posteriori truths can be derived a...81%A proposition that is a priori cannot be a necessary a posteriori trut...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: physicalism
    View source passageHide passage
    The appeal to the necessary a posteriori is on the surface an attractive one, but it is also controversial. One problem arises from the fact that Kripke’s idea that there are necessary and a posteriori truths can be interpreted in two rather different ways. On the first interpretation — I will call it the derivation view — while there are necessary a posteriori truths, these truths can be derived a priori from truths which are a posteriori and contingent. On the second interpretation — I will ca
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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