Regularity conditions (no zero probabilities for contingent propositions) are theoretically coherent and capture intuitions about epistemic openness better than standard frameworks.

?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.

Contingent propositions(what the difference between weak and strong supervenience supposedly rests on): Statements that could be either true or false—they're true in reality but could have been false, unlike necessary truths like 'all triangles have three sides.'
Epistemic openness(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge)): The idea that we should remain open to the possibility that we could be wrong about things and that unexpected things could happen.
Regularity conditions(as another method philosophers use to identify causes): A way of testing if something caused something else by looking at whether those two things regularly happen together in a pattern.
Standard frameworks(as used in academic philosophy): The traditional or most commonly accepted systems and methods that philosophers and scientists usually use to solve problems.

Based on where you are in your exploration