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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Different societies may have incompatible but internally coherent systems of logic

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle are presupposed by any coherent system of inference, including those used to assert relativism itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A logical system that genuinely rejects non-contradiction cannot be 'internally coherent' in any meaningful sense, since coherence requires distinguishing truth from falsity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Priest's dialethism notwithstanding, no natural language community demonstrably reasons without distinguishing valid from invalid inference in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's principle of charity entails that radical logical divergence between communities would make their utterances uninterpretable as assertions at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we cannot recognize another community's practices as logic without shared inferential norms, then 'incompatible logics' is not a coherent cross-cultural description but a failure of translation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Validity and rules of inference are defined by the practices of a given community
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rules of inference are relative to community practices rather than being a priori universal restrictions on all thought
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42