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
    Undefinability under conditionalization reveals a substan... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Probability functions that assign probability 1 to contingent claims should be considered mere abbreviations for proper, logically explicit, non-enthymematic, inductive support relations.

    Undefinability under conditionalization reveals a substantive logical role, not an eliminable convenience.

    ?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.Some logical operators (like the conditional itself) cannot be defined using only other operators without circularity or infinite regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a concept plays a foundational role that other definitions depend upon, eliminating it would collapse rather than simplify the logical system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Undefinability often indicates primitiveness—a fundamental feature rather than a notational artifact needing removal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Undefinability via conditionalization may reflect limitations of a particular formal framework, not deep metaphysical or logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Alternative logical systems (multi-valued, paraconsistent) define conditionals through other means, suggesting undefinability is framework-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling something a 'substantive role' risks conflating practical indispensability in a system with irreducible logical primacy.
      ?

      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 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Alternative logical systems (multi-valued, paraconsistent) define conditionals t...Calling something a 'substantive role' risks conflating practical indispensabili...If a concept plays a foundational role that other definitions depend upon, elimi...Probability functions that assign probability 1 to contingent claims should be c...
    +3 moreShow less
    Some logical operators (like the conditional itself) cannot be defined using onl...Undefinability often indicates primitiveness—a fundamental feature rather than a...Undefinability via conditionalization may reflect limitations of a particular fo...

    Details

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