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
    An inference is formally valid in the restricted sense if... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An inference is formally valid in the restricted sense if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent, but not every application of that form is valid

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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 opposite of the consequent is formally incompatible with the antecedent
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There exist applications of the same form that are not valid
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity, properly construed, is defined by form alone: if a form is valid, every substitution instance must preserve truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A notion of 'restricted formal validity' that permits invalid instances is not formal validity but a weaker, content-sensitive notion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Buridan's theory of consequentiae demonstrates that genuine formal validity requires uniform truth-preservation across all instances of the same logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medieval logicians including Ockham distinguished formal from material consequence precisely by whether validity holds in all cases of that form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Heytesbury's 'restricted' category collapses this distinction, conflating accidental material consequences with genuinely formal ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If incompatibility of opposite-of-consequent with antecedent does not guarantee universal validity, the incompatibility relation itself must be non-formal, undermining the original classification.
      ?

      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 LanguageModality & Possibility

    Key Terms

    Antecedent(referring to causal conditions that would exist before Plato's decision)
    Something that comes before something else in time; in this case, an earlier event or cause.
    Consequent(as used in logic)
    The 'then' part of an if-then statement—the result that follows from the condition.
    Formally incompatible(describing the relationship between the opposite of the consequent and the antecedent)
    Two ideas that logically cannot both be true at the same time; they directly contradict each other.
    Formally valid(describing the technical legitimacy of incompatible theories)
    Logically correct according to the rules of reasoning, even if the conclusion might seem odd or unacceptable in practice.
    inference(Nyāya epistemology)
    A component of epistemology in Nyāya philosophy; a veritable inference yields knowledge about the world and must have premises that are themselves known

    Related

    A notion of 'restricted formal validity' that permits invalid instances is not f...Buridan's theory of consequentiae demonstrates that genuine formal validity requ...Formal validity, properly construed, is defined by form alone: if a form is vali...Heytesbury's 'restricted' category collapses this distinction, conflating accide...
    +4 moreShow less
    If incompatibility of opposite-of-consequent with antecedent does not guarantee ...Medieval logicians including Ockham distinguished formal from material consequen...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: heytesbury
    View source passageHide passage
    An inference is formally valid in the universal sense if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent and a similar form [of argument] holds in all applications (consimilis forma valet in omni materia) (…) An inference is [formally] valid in the restricted sense if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent, but not every such application is valid. ([IHT] arg. 11)
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The opposite of the consequent is formally incompatible with the antecedent
    There exist applications of the same form that are not valid

    Similar

    An inference is formally valid in the universal sense if and only if t...93%The inference in question is not valid based upon its logical form83%Formal validity requires that an inference hold under uniform substitu...80%The assumption that inference is essentially rule guided can be questi...80%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit