Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Logical consequence preserves truth but not psychological certainty, since a valid inference can produce doubt if the inferential step itself is uncertain.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If an inferential step is genuinely uncertain, we lack sufficient justification to claim the conclusion preserves the premises' truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Truth preservation requires confidence in the inference rule itself; doubt about validity undermines the truth-preservation claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Practical reasoning conflates logical validity with epistemic justification—doubt about steps makes conclusions epistemically unreliable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Truth preservation is a formal property independent of the reasoner's mental state or confidence level in premises.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Uncertainty about inference rules (e.g., modus ponens) can coexist with logically valid deductions that preserve truth values.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Psychological certainty depends on factors like cognitive biases and background knowledge, not just logical validity.
?
How convincing is this?
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.