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 second 'broad assumption' (¬p ∧ ¬Fp) → P¬Fp is not true when p refers to a future contingency

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.When p refers to a future contingency, p has the truth value ½ or 'indeterminate'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Where p is indeterminate, both Fp and ¬Fp are indeterminate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Fp is indeterminate, then P¬Fp (the consequent of the disputed formula) is false
      ?

      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.