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
    For an argument to be logically correct, the conclusion m... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    For an argument to be logically correct, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises (i.e., be a logical consequence of the premises), not merely follow materially

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Material consequence holds when a conclusion follows from premises due to contingent facts about the subject matter
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical consequence requires the conclusion to follow from the premises with respect to all extra-logical simple ideas contained in the premises or conclusion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Material consequence alone is insufficient for logical correctness
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tarski's model-theoretic account shows logical consequence is defined by truth-preservation across all models, not by substitution of non-logical terms as Bolzano requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bolzano's substitutional criterion fails for languages with limited expressive resources, where accidental co-extension can masquerade as logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the logical/material distinction Bolzano draws cannot bear the normative weight he assigns it without a prior, independent account of logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's indeterminacy of the analytic/synthetic distinction undermines any principled demarcation between logical and extra-logical vocabulary on which Bolzano's criterion depends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no stable boundary exists between logical and non-logical simple ideas, then 'logical consequence' in Bolzano's sense collapses back into a context-sensitive, pragmatic notion rather than a formal one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    Bolzano's substitutional criterion fails for languages with limited expressive r...If no stable boundary exists between logical and non-logical simple ideas, then ...Logical consequence requires the conclusion to follow from the premises with res...Material consequence alone is insufficient for logical correctness
    +4 moreShow less
    Material consequence holds when a conclusion follows from premises due to contin...Quine's indeterminacy of the analytic/synthetic distinction undermines any princ...Tarski's model-theoretic account shows logical consequence is defined by truth-p...Therefore, the logical/material distinction Bolzano draws cannot bear the normat...

    Similar

    The argument with premises K and conclusion X is logically correct acc...88%Traditional logical argument requires that the premises and conclusion...84%Logical consequence requires the conclusion to follow from the premise...83%Deductive logic does not judge the correctness of premises but only ad...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bolzano
    View source passageHide passage
    In this sense, e.g., the proposition [Kant is European] follows from the set {[Kant is a philosopher], [Every philosopher is German]} with respect to the idea [philosopher]. The conclusion follows, so to speak, “materially” from the premises, or is a “material” consequence of the premises, due to the fact that every German is European. This is not enough, of course, for an argument to be logically correct. In order to be logically correct, the conclusion \(s\) of an argument \(\langle \sigma , s
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit