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 Modal entailment fails to satisfy the epistemic constraint required for an entailment account of ontological commitment.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The epistemic constraint requires that ontological commitments be knowable a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Following Kripke (1980), there are necessary propositions that cannot be known a priori.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If 'Water is H2O' is metaphysically necessary but not knowable a priori, then the theory containing 'Water exists' modally entails that hydrogen exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.