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 Structural equation models cannot adequately represent grounding and metaphysical explanation

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Determining whether a causal model includes the right variables to represent a causal structure typically requires reference to theories supported by a posteriori evidence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In the case of grounding, a posteriori evidence for model-aptness is not available
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The grounding theorist must countenance counterpossibles, not merely all possible scenarios, which is a further demand not present in ordinary causal modeling
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.