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 Connexive theses like Aristotle's can be evaluated under possible-worlds semantics without assigning them probability 1, undermining the empirical argument.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If connexive theses lack probability 1, they fail to capture Aristotle's intended doctrine that contradictory antecedents make conditionals necessarily false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Possible-worlds semantics requires determining which worlds are accessible; connexive logic's constraints become ad hoc without empirical grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Assigning sub-certainty to logical principles undermines their function as constraints on valid reasoning, collapsing into mere conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Possible-worlds semantics can model necessity without probability 1 by restricting truth across accessible worlds, not requiring absolute certainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's connexive theses describe logical constraints on conditionals, which are evaluable as true in some worlds without empirical universality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The empirical argument conflates metaphysical necessity with empirical frequency, but logical truths need not hold in all actual cases.
      ?

      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.