Inductive logic should not presuppose the truth of contin... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Inductive logic should not presuppose the truth of contingent statements.

Skepticism Truth & Knowledge

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.If a support function assigns degree 1 to a contingent statement C on all possible evidence, then no evidence can count against C.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.A logic that allows no evidence against a contingent statement fails to measure the extent to which premises indicate the likely truth-values of conclusions.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.The purpose of inductive logic is to provide a measure of the extent to which premise statements indicate the likely truth-values of contingent conclusion statements.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Carnap's inductive logic legitimately treats logical truths as having confirmation value 1, establishing that not all a priori constraints on support functions undermine evidential sensitivity.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.The prohibition on presupposing contingent truths conflates the object-language content of hypotheses with the meta-level structural constraints that define a coherent probability space.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A support function can encode background regularities as framework principles without assigning them probability 1 relative to empirical evidence, as Carnap's lambda-continuum demonstrates.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.