Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Two sentences with identical truth sets can diverge in what they entail if their constitutive grounds differ, so D need not inherit E's entailment profile.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If D and E have identical truth sets, they share all truth-conditions in any possible world, making their grounds irrelevant to entailment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Entailment is a logical relation defined by truth-preservation, not by constitutive grounds or metaphysical structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Allowing ground-dependent entailment divergence risks making entailment too fine-grained to be a stable logical notion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Grounding is finer-grained than truth conditions: what makes something true differs from whether it is true.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Entailment tracks explanatory relationships, not just truth-value preservation across possible worlds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
D and E can be true via different causal or metaphysical structures, yielding different downstream consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
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.