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 structured taxonomy of inferential grounds constitutes a formal logical apparatus; Hansen and Graham both acknowledge Mohist inference rules operate over propositional structures, not merely semantic resemblances.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ancient Chinese texts lack explicit formalization of propositional logic comparable to Aristotelian or modern systems, making 'formal logical apparatus' a potentially anachronistic imposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hansen and Graham themselves debate the precise nature of Mohist inference; calling their position a scholarly consensus overstates agreement and masks interpretive disagreement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing 'propositional structures' from 'semantic resemblances' requires criteria the Mohist texts may not explicitly endorse, risking projection of modern logical categories onto pre-modern thought.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mohist texts explicitly discuss inference patterns (like analogical reasoning) that apply across different propositional contents, not just similar objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hansen and Graham's scholarship demonstrates Mohist logic distinguishes between structural rules of inference and mere semantic associations or metaphorical similarities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A formal logical apparatus requires rules operating on syntactic/propositional structures; if Mohist inference were purely semantic resemblance, it couldn't account for valid inferences between dissimilar domains.
      ?

      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.