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
    Without a complete theory of intrinsic probability that a... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Le Poidevin's defense of premise (1) is incomplete

    Without a complete theory of intrinsic probability that accounts for both simplicity and scope, Le Poidevin's premise (1) remains an undefended assumption, not an argument.

    ?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.Probability assignments require principled justification; intuitive appeals without theoretical grounding are insufficient for metaphysical claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Simplicity and scope are genuinely distinct criteria that can conflict; unifying them requires explicit theoretical work, not assumption.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Le Poidevin's argument's persuasiveness depends on premise (1) being justified; if unjustified, the entire inference chain collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Perfect theoretical completeness is an unrealistic standard; most successful arguments operate with partially justified background assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Premise (1) may be defensible through abductive inference from how probability reasoning actually works across science, without complete foundational theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demanding a complete theory before accepting any premise risks infinite regress; some starting points must be accepted to proceed rationally.
      ?

      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 linkedNatural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Demanding a complete theory before accepting any premise risks infinite regress;...Le Poidevin's argument's persuasiveness depends on premise (1) being justified; ...Le Poidevin's defense of premise (1) is incompletePerfect theoretical completeness is an unrealistic standard; most successful arg...
    +3 moreShow less
    Premise (1) may be defensible through abductive inference from how probability r...Probability assignments require principled justification; intuitive appeals with...Simplicity and scope are genuinely distinct criteria that can conflict; unifying...

    Details

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