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 Finite axiomatizability of S_2 or T_2 is an open problem, and modal epistemologists following Williamson hold that possibility claims require more than the absence of known refutations.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Requiring positive proof of possibility beyond refutation-absence sets an unreasonably high bar that makes most ordinary modal reasoning epistemically unjustified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Finite axiomatizability status of formal systems doesn't determine whether natural-language modal claims require extra epistemic support beyond standard justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williamson's safety principle, while plausible for knowledge, may overconstrain modal epistemology and conflate metaphysical possibility with justified assertability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Williamson's safety condition requires that true beliefs couldn't easily have been false, demanding positive justification beyond mere absence of refutation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.S_2 and T_2's open axiomatizability status suggests their logical structure resists complete formalization, requiring epistemic caution about possibility claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Coherence without known contradiction is insufficient for metaphysical possibility; modal claims need constructive evidence, not just negative absence of counterexample.
      ?

      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.