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 standard definition V1 of a counter-example is inadequate when properties are partially located

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Definition V1 counts a place as a counter-example to an inference if the reason property is present and the inferred property is absent there
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If fire is both present and absent in the kitchen (due to partial location), the kitchen qualifies as a counter-example under V1 because fire is absent there
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.But the kitchen is not a genuine counter-example because fire is also present there, satisfying the rule 'where there is smoke there is fire'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Proof of definition segments
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.