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 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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