Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A consequence that becomes valid upon articulating its implicit logical structure satisfies (ST) at the level of its complete logical form.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Articulation cannot create validity retroactively; a consequence either followed logically before or did not.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Implicit structures may be ambiguous or admit multiple formalizations, making articulation theory-dependent, not objective.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Satisfying (ST) should not require cognitive act of articulation; validity should be mind-independent and intrinsic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical validity is intrinsic to argument structure, not dependent on external discovery or articulation by agents.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Making implicit premises explicit reveals what was already logically entailed, satisfying formal validity conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Complete logical form captures all necessary conditions for a consequence to follow, determining its validity status.
?
How convincing is this?
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.