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 Preferred models provide a general mechanism for inducing a nonmonotonic consequence relation.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The selection of 'preferred' models smuggles in normative criteria that cannot themselves be justified within the purely model-theoretic framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hansson and Makinson demonstrated that different preference orderings over models yield incompatible consequence relations for identical premise sets.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A mechanism that produces arbitrary outputs depending on antecedently chosen preferences lacks the modal grounding required to track genuine possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kraus, Lehmann, and Magidor showed that preferred model semantics validates only System P, which is too weak to capture defeasible conditionals in natural reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A function can be defined that maps each formula set Γ to a proper subset MΓ of the models of Γ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Γ implies C only if C is satisfied by every model in MΓ rather than every model of Γ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because MΓ∪{A} is not assumed to be a subset of MΓ, the implication from Γ to C need not extend to supersets of Γ.
      ?

      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.