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 Logical concepts such as logical consequence and logical probability can be applied indirectly to mental inferences

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mental inferences are individuated by their psychological history and causal role, not by propositional content alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two inferences with identical propositional content but different cognitive origins constitute distinct mental acts that resist uniform logical assessment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Transferring properties from abstract arguments to token mental events conflates the normative and descriptive dimensions of reasoning, as Frege warned against psychologism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The mapping from mental inferences to arguments is not unique when reasoners employ tacit premises, vague concepts, or context-dependent indexicals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a unique corresponding argument, the indirect application of logical consequence back to the inference is indeterminate and yields no determinate logical assessment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Every inference uniquely determines a corresponding argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical consequence and logical probability are defined for arguments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Properties of the determined argument can be transferred back to the inference that determines it
      ?

      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.