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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.