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 Arguments are valid only relative to the premises they assume; an argument assuming equiprobability is formally inapplicable to agents holding asymmetric priors.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity (syntactic structure) is independent of premise content; an invalid argument remains invalid regardless of what priors agents hold.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Asymmetric priors agents can still evaluate arguments by translating conclusions to their own probability space—applicability doesn't require shared assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates applicability with persuasiveness; an argument is valid even if it fails to move someone with different priors, not inapplicable to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Validity is a logical relation between premises and conclusions; changing premises changes what follows, so arguments are indeed premise-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent with asymmetric priors uses different background knowledge than the equiprobability assumption encodes, making direct application logically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Soundness requires both validity and true premises; an argument valid under false premises is unsound, so relative applicability protects rational agency.
      ?

      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.