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 framework that explicitly encompasses probabilistic enthymemes and topical reasoning cannot be charged with restricting argumentation to formal demonstration alone.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Acknowledging probabilistic enthymemes and topical reasoning differs from proving they prevent restriction to formal demonstration in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A framework can nominally encompass these elements while still privileging formal demonstration as the standard for justified belief or rational persuasion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Including probabilistic and topical reasoning without explicit criteria for their validation risks collapsing standards into mere rhetorical effectiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic enthymemes capture reasoning with suppressed premises that hold with high but non-certain probability, mirroring actual human inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Topical reasoning allows arguers to select premises from culturally-specific domains of plausibility, not just universal logical principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Explicitly accommodating non-demonstrative inference patterns prevents the framework from dismissing common persuasive practices as logically invalid.
      ?

      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.