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 bare logical fact that Not-Q8* entails or explains E8 is insufficient for confirmation without specifying the relevant likelihood ratios (Sober, 'Likelihoodism').

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Not-Q8* entails E8, then E8 is logically guaranteed given Not-Q8*, making likelihood ratios trivial (ratio of 1).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring likelihood ratios imposes an additional informational burden beyond what logic and observation provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sober's likelihoodism conflates explanatory power with confirmation; deductive entailment may suffice for the former.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Entailment alone cannot distinguish between hypotheses that both predict the same evidence equally well.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Likelihood ratios quantify comparative predictive power, which is necessary for rational hypothesis selection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Two theories can entail identical evidence but differ drastically in how probable that evidence is under each.
      ?

      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.