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 Le Poidevin's defense of premise (1) is incomplete

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Le Poidevin never shows that intrinsic probability depends only on specificity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are good reasons to believe that intrinsic probability does not depend only on specificity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Le Poidevin's argument relies on a Kolmogorov-style probability framework where simpler hypotheses receive higher priors, but this conflates logical and epistemic probability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Swinburne's own treatment in 'The Existence of God' distinguishes intrinsic probability from simplicity in ways Le Poidevin's premise (1) fails to accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a complete theory of intrinsic probability that accounts for both simplicity and scope, Le Poidevin's premise (1) remains an undefended assumption, not an argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's inductive logic demonstrates that probability assignments depend on the choice of language and predicate system, not solely on the specificity of a hypothesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If intrinsic probability were determined solely by specificity, then the probability of theism versus naturalism would be underdetermined by Le Poidevin's framework, since both can be formulated at varying levels of specificity.
      ?

      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.