The phrase "a contrast class" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in discussions related to linguistics, logic, or comparative analysis to refer to a group that is contrasted with another group.
Example: "In this study, we will examine the features of the target group and its contrast class to highlight the differences in behavior."
Alternatives: "a comparison group" or "a contrasting category".
Consider a contrast class.
First consider Schlick as a contrast class.
Until one specifies a contrast class, van Fraassen argues, a particular why-question has not been identified or posed.
They are relevant because philosophers of science have frequently presented 17th-century theories of scientific method as a contrast class to current philosophies of discovery.
Such paradoxes lead some 'classy' Pyrrhonian moral skeptics to deny that any contrast class is ever really relevant.
Alternatively, classy Pyrrhonian moral skeptics might suspend belief about whether any contrast class is ever really relevant or not.
Such Pyrrhonian moral skeptics refuse to take any position either way on whether any believer is justified (without qualification), although they can still talk about whether someone is justified in believing a moral claim out of a specified contrast class.
This is reflected in van Fraassen's theory in the choice of a $P_k$ and an associated contrast class $X$.
For DS1-bolon, PC3 captured an opposing effect between the metabolic class TCA and two other classes: non-reducing sugars and N-acetylated amino acids whilst PC4 highlighted a contrast between class TCA and class unsaturated fatty acids and oxylipins (Additional file 1: Figure S5).
For example, an explanandum for which the contrast class is left implicit may seem to support a context-relative picture of explanation (for example, that different explanations of why the conductor is bent will be appropriate depending on context) but at least sometimes this appearance may be removed by making the intended contrast class explicit.
Analogously, someone can be justified in believing a claim out of one contrast class, even if the same person is not justified in believing the same claim out of a different contrast class.
