Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that In classical theories of entailment, the relevant possibilities are those where all necessities in X are true
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Relevant logic (Anderson & Belnap) requires that premises and conclusions share topic-content, not merely modal closure over necessities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Classical modal semantics permits irrelevant entailments like 'A∧¬A ⊢ B', which violates the relevance constraint on genuine implication.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A theory that validates explosion cannot be tracking the right space of possibilities for real inferential connection between X and its consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Impossible worlds semantics (Priest, Berto) demonstrates that some entailment relations require ranging over worlds where necessities fail.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the relevant possibilities exclude worlds falsifying necessities, hyperintensional distinctions—e.g., between '2+2=4' and 'Fermat's Last Theorem'—cannot be drawn.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Classical entailment restricts the space of relevant possibilities to those satisfying what is taken as necessary in X
?
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.