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 If conventions merely supplement rules, they are parasitic on formalism and cannot ground an *adequate* account independent of it.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Conventions themselves require rules to stabilize them; otherwise they collapse into arbitrary practice with no normative force.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An adequate account need not be independent of formalism; supplementation and parasitism are distinct relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many domains (mathematics, logic) succeed with formalist foundations despite convention; adequacy may not require independence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rules require interpretation; conventions provide the shared meanings that make interpretation possible at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A formalist system cannot explain why the same rule produces different outcomes across contexts without appealing to convention.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If conventions merely supplement rules, they cannot be derived from rules alone, making formalism incomplete by definition.
?
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.