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 Demonstrating the formal invalidity of an argument via counterexample presupposes a principled way of discerning the full logical structure of that argument, and hence of distinguishing logical constants from nonlogical constants.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterexample validity in natural language reasoning is established by semantic content, not by prior commitment to a canonical logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's substitutional account shows formal invalidity can be demonstrated by uniform substitution of nonlogical terms without presupposing a fixed logical/nonlogical distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If counterexamples can succeed by semantic transparency rather than structural analysis, the demarcation of logical constants is a post-hoc theoretical artifact, not a presupposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Etchemendy's critique shows that Tarskian logical consequence already conflates model-theoretic stipulation with genuine necessity, undermining the authority of any formal structural reading.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the formal structure assigned to an argument is itself theory-laden and revisable, then 'presupposing' that structure is not a precondition of counterexample practice but a contested theoretical choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A genuine counterexample to the formal validity of an argument must exhibit the full logical structure of that argument, not merely a surface propositional form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Demarcater insists that the full logical structure of the firefighter argument is the quantificational form, not the mere propositional form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Other arguments sharing only the propositional form but having true premises and a false conclusion do not count as genuine counterexamples to the firefighter argument's validity.
      ?

      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.