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 Some scientific axioms cannot be straightforwardly necessary in the way Aristotle requires

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some Aristotelian axioms concern phenomena like eclipses and rainbows
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Eclipses and rainbows are not always instantiated, even in a sempiternal Aristotelian world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposition about phenomena that are not always instantiated cannot be unconditionally necessary
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's Posterior Analytics requires scientific knowledge to concern what cannot be otherwise, yet natural science treats contingent regularities as necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Necessary propositions must be true in all possible circumstances, but natural regularities like eclipses depend on contingent alignments of particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A demonstrative science built on conditionally necessary premises inherits modal weakness, undermining the unconditional necessity Aristotle demands of episteme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Avicenna distinguished between necessity per se and necessity per accidens, showing that physical laws hold necessarily only relative to given conditions, not absolutely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If scientific axioms are only conditionally necessary, as Boethius of Dacia's modal analysis of natural science implies, they fail Aristotle's own criterion in Posterior Analytics 71b12-16.
      ?

      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.