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 Kripke's a posteriori necessities (e.g., water=H2O) constitute genuine metaphysical reductions without any corresponding apriori entailment.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If 'water' and 'H2O' lack a priori entailment, the identity may be contingent on this world's physical laws, not metaphysically necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conceptual non-equivalence suggests we've only discovered empirical correlation, not genuine metaphysical reduction of one thing to another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A priori entailment may be required for reduction claims; without it, 'water=H2O' remains a contingent scientific regularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Water and H2O are genuinely identical in all possible worlds despite epistemic separability, making reduction metaphysically real.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A posteriori discovery of identities reveals underlying nature without requiring a priori entailment between concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientific reduction succeeds precisely when empirical investigation reveals necessity without logical equivalence of terms.
      ?

      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.