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 Lange's argument is flawed because it relies on the unacknowledged assumption that a universal sentence explains its instances

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Lange's argument presupposes that a universal sentence explains its instances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This assumption is not acknowledged or justified in Lange's argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hempel's Deductive-Nomological model explicitly requires that explanations subsume instances under universal laws, making this assumption theoretically loaded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lange's argument structurally mirrors DN explanation by deriving specific outcomes from universal mathematical truths, inheriting DN's undefended subsumption principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without acknowledging this DN inheritance, Lange's argument smuggles in a contested covering-law framework that Scriven and others have shown requires independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's Posterior Analytics distinguishes demonstrative knowledge of universals from explanatory knowledge of particulars, showing universal-to-instance inference is non-trivial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if a universal mathematical truth holds necessarily, its explanatory relevance to a particular instance requires a non-deductive relevance relation that Lange never specifies.
      ?

      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.