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 one argument can be defeated without undermining the o... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The argument from moral explanations, the regress argument, and the skeptical hypothesis argument are mutually supportive.

    If one argument can be defeated without undermining the other, their relationship is competitive rather than mutually reinforcing, and the claimed mutual support is contingent rather than structural.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Key Terms

    Structural(as used in logic)
    In logic, something that relates to the basic framework or pattern of how an argument is organized, not the specific content.
    argument(Epistemology and argumentation theory; the 'evidentiary' conception of argument)
    An evidentiary construct consisting of (1) premises, (2) a conclusion, and (3) an inference from the premises to the conclusion, implying that the conclusion is true, likely true, plausible, or should otherwise be accepted.
    competitive relationship(in logic)
    A situation where two things are in opposition or conflict with each other, so that accepting one means rejecting the other.
    contingent(De Interpretatione 12–13)
    Equated with 'possible'; on the two-sided interpretation, contingency excludes necessity (possibility implies non-necessity).

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    defeated(describing when reasons for believing something stop working)
    Undermined or weakened; knocked down or shown to be insufficient.
    mutually reinforcing(in argumentation)
    When two or more things support and strengthen each other, making each one more believable or powerful when combined.
    undermining(Types of attack relations in argumentation theory)
    An argument undermines a second argument when the conclusion of the first contradicts one of the premises of the second

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    The argument from moral explanations, the regress argument, and the skeptical hy...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective