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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.