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 Frege's Basic Law V, which grounds the one-to-one correlation in P2, was proven inconsistent by Russell and abandoned even by Frege himself in 1902.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Basic Law V's inconsistency doesn't prove Frege abandoned it reluctantly; he may have refined rather than rejected foundational concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Later developments (type theory, set theory axioms) solved the paradox without demonstrating Basic Law V itself was fundamentally flawed in intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim conflates Russell's proof of inconsistency with Frege's intellectual acceptance; historical evidence of his precise reasoning is limited.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Russell's paradox (1901) definitively showed Basic Law V permits set formation from any property, leading to contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's own response to Russell acknowledged the law's failure and he abandoned his logicist project without proposing a viable fix.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inconsistency is mathematically proven and uncontroversial among logicians, making the law's rejection historically inevitable.
      ?

      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.