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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Kreisel's squeezing argument demonstrates that informal provability and formal derivability can come apart even when both fall under a proof-theoretic framework.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Without explicit criteria for informal provability, the claimed gap becomes unfalsifiable—informal intuition is too vague to meaningfully separate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any informal proof Kreisel identifies can be formalized in a stronger system, suggesting the gap is merely notational rather than substantive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If informal provability requires appeal to metatheoretic reasoning, it's still formal reasoning by another name, not genuinely distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Informal provability captures mathematical intuition about what 'ought' to follow from axioms, independent of formal system constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gödel's incompleteness theorems show formal systems have limits; informal reasoning can recognize truths formal systems cannot derive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mathematicians historically accepted statements as 'proven' before formal axiomatization existed, suggesting informal proof is conceptually prior.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42