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 Arguing for the consistency of a set of axioms by observing that the intended structure itself satisfies those axioms begs the question

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gödel's own practice shows that semantic consistency arguments via intended models have independent epistemic value even absent formal proof.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The charge of circularity conflates ontological presupposition with logical circularity: assuming M exists is not the same inference-step as concluding θ_M is consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hilbert's distinction between contentual and formal reasoning permits intended-model arguments as pre-formal evidence that guides, rather than replaces, rigorous consistency proofs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parsons and Shapiro argue that the iterative conception of sets provides independent, non-circular grounds for accepting the cumulative hierarchy V before any axiomatization is formulated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the intended structure M is apprehended through a conceptually prior informal understanding, invoking M is not question-begging but rather an appeal to the evidential basis that motivated the axioms in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The trivial approach to showing θ_M is consistent is to note that the structure M satisfies θ_M
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This is circular because the existence of M is precisely what is at issue
      ?

      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.