Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Both Peano's axioms and Dedekind's axioms become demonstrable
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Russell's logical theory of cardinals relies on the axiom of reducibility, which Wittgenstein and others argued is not a logical truth but an empirical assumption.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A derivation built on non-logical axioms does not constitute a logical demonstration in the sense required for logicism's foundational ambitions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Benacerraf's identification problem shows that multiple incompatible set-theoretic reductions equally satisfy Peano's axioms, undermining any claim that one derivation is canonical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the axioms are demonstrable only relative to an arbitrarily chosen construction, they are not demonstrated in an absolute logical sense but merely shown to be consistent within one model.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
The logical theory of cardinals provides a foundation from which both Peano's axioms and Dedekind's axioms can be derived
?
How convincing is this?
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.