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 Holmes's own reconstruction of T in NFU requires auxiliary lemmas about type-raising that are not part of the original classical definition, making the claim equivocal.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Auxiliary lemmas in formal systems are standard practice; they prove theorems within the system without making the original definition equivocal or false.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Holmes's reconstruction remains faithful to NFU's core principles even if it requires intermediate steps; the target theorem's truth is independent of proof method.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Classical definitions often require constructive techniques to instantiate them; technical machinery doesn't undermine equivalence if it's internally consistent with the system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Holmes's type-raising lemmas go beyond Quine's original NFU axioms, introducing non-standard machinery not explicitly defined in the classical system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When reconstruction requires auxiliary principles absent from original definitions, the equivalence claim becomes ambiguous about what is actually being proven.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Type-raising lemmas function as hidden assumptions that change the logical structure, making the reconstruction non-trivial in ways the classical definition doesn't acknowledge.
      ?

      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.