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 Dependence and explanation are more fine-grained relations than modern logical entailment

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Logical entailment can be formulated in hyperintensional frameworks (e.g., Fine's truthmaker semantics) that distinguish necessarily equivalent propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If modern logic already accommodates fine-grained necessary connections, Spinoza's asymmetric explanatory relations require no primitive notion beyond what formal tools provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates classical extensional entailment with the full resources of contemporary modal and hyperintensional logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason generates asymmetric explanatory chains among necessary truths using only conceptual containment, not a sui generis dependence relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Leibniz's framework captures causal asymmetry among necessities without abandoning logical analysis, Spinoza's case does not establish that dependence is irreducibly finer-grained than entailment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.According to modern logical entailment, every necessary proposition entails and is entailed by every other necessary proposition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Spinoza holds that substance causes and asymmetrically explains necessarily existing infinite modes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Asymmetrical explanation among necessary truths requires a finer-grained notion of dependence than logical entailment
      ?

      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.