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
    Conflating the modal claim 'some inclusion must be proper... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→At least one of the inclusions among L, P, NP, PSPACE, and EXP must be proper

    Conflating the modal claim 'some inclusion must be proper' with the epistemically stronger 'we know which one' obscures that the claim's truth-value is currently grounded in inference, not demonstration.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Conflating
    Conflating means mixing together or treating two different things as if they were the same thing, when they're actually distinct. It's a logical error where someone blurs important differences between concepts, ideas, or situations to make an argument seem stronger than it is. For example, conflating "being critical of a policy" with "being disloyal to your country" wrongly equates two separate things.
    Epistemically stronger(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge))
    A claim that requires more evidence or justification to support it. If claim B is 'epistemically stronger' than claim A, then B is harder to know or prove than A.
    Modal claim(logic/philosophy)
    A statement about what is necessary (must be true), possible (could be true), or impossible (cannot be true), rather than just what is actually true in one situation.
    demonstration(The target of the skeptical critique; assumed to be the standard model of knowledge acquisition)
    A method of inferential proof from first principles or definitions, claimed to be the means by which knowledge is acquired

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    epistemology(Contrasted with purely descriptive scientific inquiry)
    A normative enterprise that tells us how we ought to reason from evidence and how we ought to justify our beliefs, as distinct from merely describing how we do reason or justify beliefs
    grounded in(whether distinctness or identity is explained by intrinsic features)
    To be explained by or to have its reason or basis in something else—like how a tree being wet is grounded in (explained by) recent rain.
    inference(Nyāya epistemology)
    A component of epistemology in Nyāya philosophy; a veritable inference yields knowledge about the world and must have premises that are themselves known
    truth-value(logic and philosophy of language)
    Whether a statement is true or false. Two statements can have different truth-values if one is true and the other is false.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    At least one of the inclusions among L, P, NP, PSPACE, and EXP must be proper

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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