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
    The standard account's conditional ('were it the only rel... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→If the standard account of particular relevance were defensible, generalists would have an epistemological basis for claiming that relevance is always general.

    The standard account's conditional ('were it the only relevant feature') is never instantiated, since real cases always contain multiple features.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual conditionals require possible worlds; isolating single features creates logically impossible scenarios with no truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scientific explanation always involves multiple causal factors; artificially removing them violates how actual causation operates in nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the conditional is never satisfied, attributing causal power via that conditional is vacuous and explanatorily useless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Thought experiments regularly isolate variables in impossible conditions; this doesn't undermine their logical validity or philosophical use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A conditional can be true and meaningful even if its antecedent is never actual—counterfactuals routinely describe what would happen if things differed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The standard account aims to analyze causal concepts abstractly; instantiation in real cases is unnecessary for a conceptual account's correctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A conditional can be true and meaningful even if its antecedent is never actual—...Counterfactual conditionals require possible worlds; isolating single features c...If the conditional is never satisfied, attributing causal power via that conditi...If the standard account of particular relevance were defensible, generalists wou...
    +3 moreShow less
    Scientific explanation always involves multiple causal factors; artificially rem...The standard account aims to analyze causal concepts abstractly; instantiation i...Thought experiments regularly isolate variables in impossible conditions; this d...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit