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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gödel argued that mathematical intuition directly perceives abstract truths that formal proof systems cannot themselves establish (Gödel 1947).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If some propositions are true but unprovable within any formal system, logical reasoning alone cannot exhaust the grounds for holding them true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intuition in such cases does not merely report a psychological disposition but tracks truth where logical derivation is structurally unavailable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rationalists from Descartes to BonJour hold that intuition of self-evident truths constitutes the foundational epistemic bedrock upon which logical reasoning itself depends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's P3 therefore begs the question by assuming logic is self-grounding rather than intuition-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reasoning provides logical reasons for the truth of propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intuition can only furnish a reason for holding a proposition to be true, not a reason for why it is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nothing can take the place of logical reasons for the truth of any proposition.
      ?

      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.