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 universal sense if ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An inference is formally valid in the universal sense if and only if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent and a similar form of argument holds in all applications

    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.A similar form of argument holds in all applications (consimilis forma valet in omni materia)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal incompatibility between opposite-of-consequent and antecedent is itself topic-sensitive, as Buridan's theory of material consequence demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The requirement that 'consimilis forma valet in omni materia' presupposes a stable, context-independent notion of logical form that medieval syncategorematic theory cannot supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ockham's distinction between formal and material consequences shows that substitutional invariance alone cannot demarcate formal validity without prior commitment to a fixed ontology of terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Temporal and modal contexts generate counterexamples where the opposite of the consequent is incompatible with the antecedent yet the argument form fails under tense substitution, as Aristotle's sea-battle argument illustrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Heytesbury's universality condition conflates syntactic form-preservation with semantic necessity, a conflation Kripke's possible-worlds semantics later showed to be philosophically untenable.
      ?

      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.
    Universal sense(emphasizing that the validity holds across all instances)
    Applying to all cases and situations without exception; working the same way every single time.
    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 similar form of argument holds in all applications (consimilis forma valet in ...Formal incompatibility between opposite-of-consequent and antecedent is itself t...Heytesbury's universality condition conflates syntactic form-preservation with s...Ockham's distinction between formal and material consequences shows that substit...
    +3 moreShow less
    Temporal and modal contexts generate counterexamples where the opposite of the c...The opposite of the consequent is formally incompatible with the antecedent

    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 requirement that 'consimilis forma valet in omni materia' presupposes a stab...

    Similar

    An inference is formally valid in the restricted sense if the opposite...93%A proposition s is logically true if and only if s is universally vali...82%A proposition is logically true iff it is universally valid with respe...81%Formal validity requires that an inference hold under uniform substitu...79%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit