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 Conjunct (2) is not a state of affairs to be 'brought about' but rather an absence of causation, which is a relational property of the total causal history.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.We routinely describe ourselves as 'bringing about' absences—e.g., stopping a process or preventing an event from occurring.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If causal histories are relational properties of total states, they can still be altered by our interventions, making them actionable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'brought about' and 'relational property' may be merely semantic rather than ontologically significant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Absence of causation is fundamentally different from positive events, so it cannot be 'brought about' through action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Causal histories are determinate facts about the world that obtain or fail to obtain, not states we can engineer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating absences as relational properties avoids the category mistake of treating negations as causally efficacious entities.
      ?

      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.