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 default persistence is built into the action formalism itself, non-effects require no explicit specification, undermining P2's force.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Default persistence in the formalism merely relocates the problem; we still must explicitly specify when persistence *fails*, requiring equal effort.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P2's force concerns the conceptual necessity of explaining why properties persist, not notational convenience; formalism doesn't address the underlying metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Building assumptions into formalism risks obscuring genuine causal questions by treating them as solved by representational choice rather than philosophical argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Action formalisms that encode persistence as default eliminate redundant specification, making representations more parsimonious and cognitively efficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If persistence is the common case, explicit specification only for changes aligns with how humans naturally reason about action and causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P2's argumentative force depends on assuming non-effects must be explicitly stated; built-in defaults undercut that assumption logically.
      ?

      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.