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 supporting argument's premise that 'nothing is between A and D' already invokes relational betweenness, making the contact-with-spatial-parts gloss redundant and ontologically inflationary.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Betweenness being primitive does not explain *why* nothing lies between A and D—contact-with-parts provides a substantive account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Spatial parts and contact relations are independently needed for topology; denying them elsewhere doesn't reduce total ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Circularity objections assume relational betweenness requires definition rather than acceptance as a foundational spatial primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Relational betweenness is a primitive concept requiring no further spatial decomposition into parts or contact relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Invoking spatial parts and contact adds ontological commitments without explaining what makes betweenness hold between them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parsimony favors theories that explain spatial structure via minimal primitives rather than layered spatial and mereological entities.
      ?

      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.