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
    If logical reasoning requires primitive axioms whose warr... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Intuition is not an alternative to reasoning about propositions whose truth can be established by logical reasons.

    If logical reasoning requires primitive axioms whose warrant is non-inferential, then 'logical reasons' presuppose rather than replace intuitive justification.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All formal systems require foundational axioms that cannot be derived from within the system without circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-inferential warrant (like intuitive grasping of axioms) is epistemically distinct from and prior to logical inference chains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If logical reasoning depends on axioms with non-inferential warrant, then logic cannot eliminate reliance on intuitive justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Axioms need not have personal intuitive warrant; their justification can be pragmatic (coherence, predictive success) rather than foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim equivocates between 'requiring axioms' and 'presupposing intuitive justification'—axioms might be justified without intuition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Modern logic shows multiple consistent axiom systems; if intuition justified axioms, we couldn't rationally choose between incompatible systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    All formal systems require foundational axioms that cannot be derived from withi...Axioms need not have personal intuitive warrant; their justification can be prag...If logical reasoning depends on axioms with non-inferential warrant, then logic ...Intuition is not an alternative to reasoning about propositions whose truth can ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Modern logic shows multiple consistent axiom systems; if intuition justified axi...Non-inferential warrant (like intuitive grasping of axioms) is epistemically dis...The claim equivocates between 'requiring axioms' and 'presupposing intuitive jus...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit