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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

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

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42