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 deduction is a valid or acceptable argument whose structure guarantees its validity irrespective of the truth or falsity of its premises

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Aristotle, a genuine syllogism requires premises that are true, primary, and better known than the conclusion (Posterior Analytics I.2).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument from false premises cannot constitute scientific knowledge (episteme), which is the telos of Aristotelian demonstration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, structural validity alone is insufficient for Aristotelian deduction in its primary sense, which is inseparable from truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relevance logicians (Anderson and Belnap) argue that validity requires the premises to be genuinely relevant to the conclusion, not merely formally connected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument whose validity is purely structural permits paradoxes of material implication, where false premises entail any conclusion whatsoever.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A deduction whose structure 'guarantees validity' regardless of content violates the intuition that logical consequence tracks real inferential dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A deduction is an argument in which when certain things are laid down something else follows of necessity in virtue of their being so
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The structure of a deduction guarantees its validity regardless of whether the premises are true or false
      ?

      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.