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 Historical theories with mistaken ontologies often succeeded via working posits that were retained or approximated in successor theories.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Successor theories often reject predecessor posits entirely (e.g., caloric → kinetic theory); retention is selective, not systematic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Success may reflect empirical domain limitations rather than ontological proximity; false models work in restricted scopes only.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing 'successful working posits' from 'lucky empirical fits' requires independent evidence—the claim risks post-hoc rationalization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Phlogiston theory successfully predicted combustion behavior despite false ontology; oxygen theory retained its predictive equations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ptolemaic epicycles generated accurate astronomical predictions that Copernican models approximated, showing ontological error ≠ practical failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If false ontologies produced instrumentally reliable posits, those posits likely tracked real structural features independent of theoretical labels.
      ?

      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.