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 Irrelevant premise fallacies and insufficient premise fallacies are meaningfully distinct categories.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relevance is not a binary property but a scalar one, making the boundary between 'no support' and 'insufficient support' indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Carnap and Hempel's confirmation theory shows that evidential support admits of degrees with no principled zero-point distinguishing irrelevance from insufficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a principled threshold separating zero support from minimal support, the two categories collapse into a single continuum of evidential weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hitchcock and Govier's pragma-dialectical analyses show that argument evaluation is context-sensitive, making relevance assessable only relative to a dialectical situation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A premise deemed irrelevant in one dialectical context may provide genuine but insufficient support in another, meaning the categories are not intrinsically distinct but context-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Categories that shift membership based on pragmatic context cannot constitute meaningfully distinct logical kinds in the way the claim requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Irrelevant premise fallacies are those in which premises provide no support at all for the conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Insufficient premise fallacies are those in which premises provide some support for the conclusion, but not enough.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The relevance and sufficiency criteria can be satisfied independently of one another.
      ?

      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.