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 Anderson and Belnap's relevance logic, which enforces VSP, requires rejection of the disjunctive syllogism (A ∨ B, ¬A ⊢ B), a inference form Lewis and others argue is indispensable to ordinary reasoning.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Ordinary reasoning demonstrably uses disjunctive syllogism constantly: 'Either it's raining or not; it's not raining; therefore it's not raining' succeeds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A logic that forbids DS must either reject classical tautologies like (A ∨ ¬A) or accept true conclusions from true premises, undermining its coherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.VSP's enforced restrictions create artificial inference barriers without empirically demonstrating people actually reason differently or better under such constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Disjunctive syllogism permits irrelevant premises: from 'Either unrelated-fact or B' and 'not unrelated-fact,' we derive B without logical connection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Relevance logic avoids paradoxes of material implication where A→B holds whenever A is false, regardless of any meaningful relation between A and B.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting DS incentivizes explicit reasoning about actual connections between premises and conclusions rather than mechanical rule-following.
      ?

      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.