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 Entailment accounts generate commitment to whatever any sentence logically entails, including logical truths and set-theoretic consequences far beyond intended scope.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Semantic commitment differs from pragmatic commitment; asserting S need not commit us to all its set-theoretic consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cognitively unreachable or incomprehensible entailments cannot ground genuine commitment or responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Folk logic and rational agency tolerate consistent compartmentalization of beliefs without requiring omniscient coherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a sentence S is true, then all logical consequences of S are true; denying this violates basic logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Speakers who assert S implicitly commit to its logical content, whether they consciously recognize it or not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing 'intended' from 'unintended' consequences is subjective and unworkable as a principled boundary.
      ?

      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.