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
    The solution to the over-permissiveness problem should co... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A more restricted notion of entailment (entailment*) should govern infallible justification, requiring that the truthmaker of the entailing proposition be at least a constituent of the truthmaker of the entailed proposition.

    The solution to the over-permissiveness problem should concern the relation between the facts that make true the entailing and entailed propositions.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A more restricted notion of entailment (entailment*) should govern infallible ju...P entails* Q only if the fact that would make P true is at least a constituent o...This restriction appropriately limits which necessary truths can be infallibly j...

    Similar

    The property of being a transmissive argument does not coincide with t...73%Moore's proof is non-transmissive because Q8 (the proposition that an ...73%A more restricted notion of entailment (entailment*) should govern inf...73%Classical entailment restricts the space of relevant possibilities to ...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: justep-foundational
    View source passageHide passage
    We still need to qualify the entailment in some way to circumvent the problem discussed earlier. Whenever I have any justification at all for believing a proposition that turns out to be necessarily true, that justification will entail the necessary truth. But we do not want just any sort of justification to yield infallibly justified belief, even if the object of that belief is a necessary truth. This problem is notoriously difficult to solve (see the entry on Certainty for more), but intuiti

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective