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 The additivity constraint on inductive support does not apply when C acts like a logical contradiction.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic inductive logic (Carnap, Keynes) treats contradictions as receiving probability zero, not as maximally supporting all sentences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If P(C) = 0, then P(H|C) is undefined rather than maximal, undermining the claim that contradictions confer universal maximum support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An undefined conditional probability cannot serve as a limiting case that exempts contradictions from additivity — it removes them from the probability space entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Paraconsistent logics (Priest, da Costa) deny that contradictions entail everything, blocking the explosion principle that underlies P2 of the supporting argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If contradictions do not logically entail all sentences in a paraconsistent framework, there is no principled reason to assign them universal maximal inductive support.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Exempting contradictions from additivity is thus an artifact of classical logic's ex contradictione quodlibet, not a general feature of inductive support relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A logical contradiction supports all sentences to the maximum possible degree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In deductive logic, a logical contradiction logically entails every sentence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If C supports all sentences maximally, the normal summation rule for mutually exclusive propositions breaks down.
      ?

      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.