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 If contingent truths require infinite analysis to resolve, they cannot be 'analytic' in any epistemically or logically meaningful sense, only in a stipulative one.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mathematical truths require infinite steps (e.g., proof by induction) yet remain analytic; infinite analysis ≠ non-analytic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Analyticity concerns logical containment, not epistemic accessibility; a truth can be analytic even if unknowable in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Leibniz's complete concept includes infinite predicates yet remains logically determinate; infinite content permits analytical status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Analytic truths are knowable a priori without empirical investigation; infinite analysis requires empirical-like successive steps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a truth's resolution depends on infinite regress, we can never actually complete the analysis, making knowledge impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Stipulative definitions are conventional; if analyticity is merely stipulated for infinite cases, it loses explanatory power.
      ?

      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.