Nonmonotonic consequence relations grounded in preferred models cannot distinguish epistemic from metaphysical sources of revisability, collapsing a distinction Kripke's work makes mandatory.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Collapsing a distinction(logical analysis): Failing to keep apart two different ideas or categories that should remain separate; treating different things as if they're the same.
Epistemic: "Epistemic" relates to knowledge—how we know things, what counts as knowledge, and whether we can trust what we believe to be true. It comes from the Greek word for knowledge and is used to describe questions about the reliability and validity of our beliefs and understanding. For example, "epistemic humility" means acknowledging the limits of what you can actually know for certain.
Kripke: Kripke refers to Saul Kripke, an influential American philosopher and logician known for revolutionizing how we think about names, meaning, and possibility. He argued that names like "Albert Einstein" refer directly to the actual person rather than through descriptions of their properties, which changed philosophy fundamentally. His work also introduced "possible worlds" as a way to understand concepts like necessity and possibility, making him one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century.
Nonmonotonic consequence relations(logic and reasoning)

Based on where you are in your exploration