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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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