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 criterion that yields contradictions via Leibniz's Law—where A=B and B=C but A≠C—is not merely circular but logically incoherent as a sufficient condition.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The contradiction may arise from context-dependent criteria where A=B in context-1, B=C in context-2, but A≠C in context-3—not the criterion itself being incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Sufficient conditions can be imperfect guides to identity without being logically incoherent; they may be epistemically useful despite theoretical tensions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates the criterion's failure to preserve Leibniz's Law with logical incoherence; the criterion itself may be internally consistent while its application misleads.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Leibniz's Law (indiscernibility of identicals) is a foundational logical principle; violating it indicates a fundamental failure in the criterion's coherence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A criterion that produces A=B, B=C, but A≠C demonstrates it cannot reliably track identity relations, making it unreliable as a sufficient condition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Circularity and logical incoherence are distinct vices; the contradiction here reflects incoherence itself, not mere circular reasoning in the criterion.
?
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.