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
    A good argument is one that justifies its conclusion by p... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A good argument is one that justifies its conclusion by providing good reasons for believing it

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The simplest criterion for good arguments within informal logic is an informal analogue of soundness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Justifying a conclusion requires premises that are acceptable
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Justifying a conclusion requires that the conclusion follows from the premises via informal validity
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca demonstrate that argument quality is audience-relative, not reducible to belief-justification for an abstract reasoner.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An argument that justifies belief for one audience may be epistemically inappropriate or manipulative for another with different background commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore 'good reasons for believing' cannot serve as a context-independent criterion without smuggling in a privileged audience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Walton's dialectical theory holds that arguments are moves in goal-directed dialogues, and justifying belief is only one legitimate dialogue type among several.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inquiry, negotiation, and deliberation dialogues evaluate arguments by criteria orthogonal to belief-justification, such as resolving conflict or reaching workable decisions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion defining good arguments solely through belief-justification systematically misevaluates arguments that are excellent by their own proper dialectical standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A criterion defining good arguments solely through belief-justification systemat...An argument that justifies belief for one audience may be epistemically inapprop...Inquiry, negotiation, and deliberation dialogues evaluate arguments by criteria ...Justifying a conclusion requires premises that are acceptable
    +5 moreShow less
    Justifying a conclusion requires that the conclusion follows from the premises v...Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca demonstrate that argument quality is audience-rela...The simplest criterion for good arguments within informal logic is an informal a...Therefore 'good reasons for believing' cannot serve as a context-independent cri...Walton's dialectical theory holds that arguments are moves in goal-directed dial...

    Similar

    Many obviously valid arguments contain 'good' in both asserted and una...82%An argument is sound when it is both valid and has true premises80%For an argument to be a proof, its soundness must be clear to those ev...80%One can believe the premises of a valid argument without believing its...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-informal
    View source passageHide passage
    Within informal logic, the simplest criterion for good arguments is an informal analogue of soundness. It understands a good argument to be an argument that justifies its conclusion by providing good (strong, credible, etc.) reasons for believing it. Within the argument, this implies premises which are “acceptable” and a conclusion that follows from them. We can summarize this basic criterion as T = {A,V}, where A is an account of premise acceptability, and V is an account of informal validity w
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit