Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Formal validity, properly construed, is defined by form alone: if a form is valid, every substitution instance must preserve truth.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some formally valid arguments in first-order logic fail truth-preservation when quantifiers range over empty domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Substitution instances require interpretation of non-logical terms; validity thus depends partly on semantic content, not form alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classical logic and intuitionistic logic have identical forms but different validity standards, suggesting form underdetermines validity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Formal validity must depend only on logical structure, not content, or else validity becomes subjective and varies by domain.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Truth-preservation under all substitutions is the only criterion that cleanly separates valid from invalid argument forms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If form alone doesn't determine validity, we cannot teach or systematize logic as a formal discipline.
?
How convincing is this?
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.