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 Buridan and Ockham distinguished between inferences valid by form and those valid by the impossibility of their premises, and conflating these undermines ST as a criterion of logical consequence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If an inference preserves truth in all possible cases (whether via form or impossibility of counterexample), ST adequately captures logical consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The medieval distinction may reflect epistemological concerns about proof rather than a genuine logical difference in validity conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern model-theoretic semantics unifies these cases: both satisfy ST because no model makes premises true and conclusion false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity (via syntax/rules) and material validity (via impossible premises) are metaphysically distinct properties requiring separate analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating these properties allows arguments with necessarily true premises to masquerade as logically sound without formal-structural justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.ST as a criterion must distinguish what makes inferences valid *qua* logic from what makes premises happen to be necessarily true.
      ?

      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.