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 Most human errors in reasoning stem from false principles rather than from invalid inference

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's systematic treatment of fallacies in the Sophistical Refutations catalogs numerous formal errors—equivocation, affirming the consequent—that occur independently of any false principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kahneman and Tversky's heuristics-and-biases research demonstrates that subjects commit systematic logical errors even when supplied with stipulated, accepted premises in laboratory conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If invalid inference patterns occur predictably across domains regardless of content, then structural reasoning failures are causally independent of, and irreducible to, false principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Port-Royal logicians conflate the genetic question of error's origin with the normative question of error's logical type, which are distinct inquiries.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's distinction between psychologism and logical validity establishes that the frequency of a reasoning error in human practice has no bearing on whether that error is formal or material in character.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, even if false principles were the more common cause historically, this would not establish that invalid inference is a lesser or subordinate category of error in any logically significant sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.People rarely accept arguments that are defective merely because the conclusion is badly drawn
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Errors based on false principles are more common than errors of invalid inference
      ?

      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.