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 Schaffner's corrected reduction model requires that the reducing theory explain why the reduced theory worked approximately, which is a genuine necessary condition.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Approximate truth and instrumental usefulness are distinct; a theory can work without explaining why, via lucky coincidence or pragmatic fit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some reduced theories (phlogiston chemistry) worked well yet explained reality wrongly, suggesting success doesn't track ontological insight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The requirement may be too stringent: reducing theories need not explain predecessor success—only predict the same phenomena better.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A reduction is explanatorily incomplete if it cannot account for the predecessor theory's predictive success, leaving a gap in understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scientific theories that worked well (like classical mechanics) must have captured something real about their domain to achieve such accuracy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring reductive theories to explain prior success prevents ad hoc replacements that merely supersede without genuine understanding.
      ?

      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.