If the thing a discussion/debate is intended to establish is contingent on something, like a fact or theory, within your model of the world, then it would be a crux with respect to the debate. I assume that ‘cruxy’ refers to an attempt to quantify how much of the truth of the claim is dependent on that thing, i.e. to what extent it’s logically downstream of the piece of your world model whose status as a crux is under question.
Maybe the state of the clouds above a lake would to some extent be a crux relative to the question of what its volume will be tomorrow, but it’s still less cruxy than the flow—rate of a river which feeds into the lake in question. The river is upstream of the lake, whereas the clouds are above it, but both are logically upstream if it to some extent.
Because of the other comments, I don’t know how cruxy the existence of this comment is relative to whether metacelsus understands what the term means, but I have posted it in response to the ? reaction by Raemon to clarify what I meant.
If the thing a discussion/debate is intended to establish is contingent on something, like a fact or theory, within your model of the world, then it would be a crux with respect to the debate. I assume that ‘cruxy’ refers to an attempt to quantify how much of the truth of the claim is dependent on that thing, i.e. to what extent it’s logically downstream of the piece of your world model whose status as a crux is under question.
Maybe the state of the clouds above a lake would to some extent be a crux relative to the question of what its volume will be tomorrow, but it’s still less cruxy than the flow—rate of a river which feeds into the lake in question. The river is upstream of the lake, whereas the clouds are above it, but both are logically upstream if it to some extent.
Because of the other comments, I don’t know how cruxy the existence of this comment is relative to whether metacelsus understands what the term means, but I have posted it in response to the ? reaction by Raemon to clarify what I meant.