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 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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