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 A criterion that operates as a constitutive rule—like the rules of chess—cannot coherently be required to satisfy standards it itself defines.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some constitutive rules (e.g., grammar rules) are answerable to external standards of clarity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rules can simultaneously define a domain AND be rationally evaluated against broader coherence standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates 'self-validation' with 'coherent external evaluation'—these aren't the same.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Constitutive rules create the domain they govern; chess rules don't exist prior to chess itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring a rule to satisfy standards it defines is circular: the rule would validate itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing constitutive rules from regulative ones depends on this independence principle.
      ?

      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.