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 logical reasoning requires primitive axioms whose warrant is non-inferential, then 'logical reasons' presuppose rather than replace intuitive justification.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Axioms need not have personal intuitive warrant; their justification can be pragmatic (coherence, predictive success) rather than foundational.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
All formal systems require foundational axioms that cannot be derived from within the system without circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.