Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If D's disjuncts are enumerated extensionally rather than derived from E's intension, D and E can diverge in counterfactual scenarios, defeating entailment.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If D is true in the actual world, D entails itself there; counterfactual divergence doesn't defeat local entailment at the base case.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Intensional definitions can also diverge counterfactually if their source property E shifts meaning or application across possible worlds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates metaphysical grounding with logical entailment; extensional truth-conditions suffice for valid inference within any world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Extensional enumeration fixes a disjunction to actual members only, lacking modal resources to track which disjuncts remain possible elsewhere.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Intensional derivation grounds disjuncts in properties that persist across possible worlds, preserving entailment relations counterfactually.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Cases exist where actual disjuncts become impossible and new ones necessary in counterfactuals, breaking extensionally-defined entailments.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42