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
    When a false contingent proposition is posited, any false... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    When a false contingent proposition is posited, any false proposition compossible with it can be proven.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A false positum forces the respondent to grant irrelevant propositions that happen to be true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Granting those propositions renders further propositions relevant via logical entailment or disjunctive dependency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Chaining such steps allows any false proposition compossible with the positum to be derived.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The obligationes rules require the respondent to evaluate each proposition for its relevance to the positum, not merely its truth-value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A false proposition irrelevant to the positum must be denied, not granted, regardless of its compossibility with it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The derivation chain in the supporting argument conflates compossibility with relevance, collapsing a crucial medieval distinction Burley explicitly preserved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Roger Swyneshed's revisionist obligationes system holds that the respondent evaluates propositions against the positum alone, not against previously granted propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under Swyneshed's rules, disjunctive chaining strategies fail because prior concessions do not make subsequent false propositions relevant or obligatory to grant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim therefore holds only under Burleyan obligationes and cannot be generalized without presupposing a contested framework.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    A false positum forces the respondent to grant irrelevant propositions that happ...A false proposition irrelevant to the positum must be denied, not granted, regar...Chaining such steps allows any false proposition compossible with the positum to...Granting those propositions renders further propositions relevant via logical en...
    +5 moreShow less
    Roger Swyneshed's revisionist obligationes system holds that the respondent eval...The claim therefore holds only under Burleyan obligationes and cannot be general...The derivation chain in the supporting argument conflates compossibility with re...The obligationes rules require the respondent to evaluate each proposition for i...Under Swyneshed's rules, disjunctive chaining strategies fail because prior conc...

    Similar

    A proposition is contingently true when it is true in the actual world...88%For any contingently true proposition P, there exists another possible...85%A false positum forces the respondent to grant irrelevant propositions...83%A contingent truth is an actual truth that could have been false under...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: obligationes
    View source passageHide passage
    According to Burley’s approach, proposition 1 has to be evaluated as irrelevant, because it does not follow from the positum alone, and because of the first disjunct it is taken to be true even if the respondent is not a bishop (apologies to any reader actually in Rome). It must therefore be granted. However, this answer makes the other disjunct relevant, because the first disjunct happens to be the negation of the positum. Thus, Proposition 2 must be granted. Indeed, by suitable selection of pr
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit