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
    Anachronistically attributing logical inconsistency to ea... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Early infinitesimal calculus involved a logical inconsistency in the treatment of infinitesimals

    Anachronistically attributing logical inconsistency to early calculus conflates absence of rigor with presence of contradiction—a category error in historical assessment.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Newton and Leibniz used infinitesimals coherently within their own conceptual frameworks, achieving consistent results despite lacking modern formalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rigorous formalization (epsilon-delta definitions) later vindicated early calculus results, suggesting underlying consistency rather than contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating logical contradiction with informal exposition commits a category error: unclear definitions differ fundamentally from self-contradictory claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Early calculus treated infinitesimals as simultaneously zero and non-zero in arguments, which constitutes genuine logical contradiction, not mere imprecision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Success of results doesn't entail absence of contradiction; pragmatic utility can coexist with logical incoherence in formal reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing rigor from contradiction requires defining 'consistency'—which itself depends on formal logical standards the claim presupposes dismissing.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Conflating logical contradiction with informal exposition commits a category err...Distinguishing rigor from contradiction requires defining 'consistency'—which it...Early calculus treated infinitesimals as simultaneously zero and non-zero in arg...Early infinitesimal calculus involved a logical inconsistency in the treatment o...
    +3 moreShow less
    Newton and Leibniz used infinitesimals coherently within their own conceptual fr...Rigorous formalization (epsilon-delta definitions) later vindicated early calcul...Success of results doesn't entail absence of contradiction; pragmatic utility ca...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit