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 demonstrative argument is one in which certainty is transferred from premises to conclusion.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Certainty is a psychological state of the knower, not a transferable property of propositions or inferential relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A valid demonstration can yield its conclusion from certain premises while a skeptical inquirer remains unpersuaded, showing certainty is not transmitted by logical form alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes' demon scenario demonstrates that even deductively valid chains from seemingly certain premises can fail to produce certainty if foundational beliefs are themselves vulnerable to doubt.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's own Posterior Analytics distinguishes demonstrative knowledge by the necessity of the explanatory connection, not merely by the psychological certainty of premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On the Aristotelian account, a demonstration must proceed from causes, so certainty of premises is insufficient if the inferential link fails to capture the genuine explanatory ground of the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ibn Rushd's commentary tradition explicitly criticized conflating epistemic certainty with the ontological necessity required for true apodeictic demonstration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An assertion p is certain if and only if one holds the justified belief that p and the justified belief that p cannot be otherwise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Demonstrative arguments are defined by the mark of certainty.
      ?

      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.