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 Vraisemblance requires conformity to audience beliefs about what could plausibly occur in a world governed by consistent causal principles.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Audience beliefs are often factually wrong; vraisemblance shouldn't require conformity to misconceptions about actual causal principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Great fiction creates internally consistent alternate causal systems; audiences accept magical or alien physics if rules remain coherent, not familiar.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Requiring conformity to existing beliefs makes art inherently conservative and unable to challenge or expand audience understanding of possibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Audiences evaluate narrative plausibility against their mental models of causality, making shared causal understanding essential for vraisemblance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Stories violating audience expectations about physical/social laws feel arbitrary, breaking immersion regardless of internal logical consistency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical and scientific literacy vary by audience; vraisemblance depends on conforming to the specific group's causal framework, not absolute reality.
?
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.