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 Separatists about grounding explanation owe an account of how the link between grounding and grounding explanation prevents the metaphysical and explanatory elements from coming apart.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Separatists like Raven (2015) can hold that grounding facts themselves ground grounding explanations, dissolving the gap via a further grounding relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the link between grounding and grounding explanation is itself a grounding relation, no separate account of coherence is required beyond the separatist's own resources.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fine's (2012) operator-based approach treats grounding as a primitive sentential connective, not a relation, making the explanatory dimension internal to its logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If grounding is not a relation but a logical primitive encoding explanatory structure, the separatist demand for a bridging account misconstrues the nature of the relevant entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Separatism is the thesis that grounding and grounding explanation are distinct, yet grounding explanations are backed by instances of grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If grounding and grounding explanation are distinct yet linked, that link must be explained to preserve the coherence of metaphysical explanation.
      ?

      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.