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
    Ockham's 'intrinsic middles' are implicit suppressed prem... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Ockham's formal consequences valid in virtue of intrinsic middles do not satisfy the (ST) criterion

    Ockham's 'intrinsic middles' are implicit suppressed premises that, when made explicit, render the consequence formally valid by (ST).

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Medieval logic recognized that ordinary language arguments omit steps required for formal validity in syllogistic logic (ST).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ockham's framework explains why natural arguments feel valid yet need supplementation—unstated middle terms bridge the gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Making implicit premises explicit preserves the arguer's original intent while satisfying formal logical requirements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The notion of 'intrinsic' middles is unclear—it's ambiguous whether they're psychological, linguistic, or metaphysical entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This framework risks trivializing validity: any invalid argument becomes 'valid' once we stipulate hidden premises post hoc.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.ST-formalized validity may not capture what makes natural arguments compelling—formal validity alone doesn't guarantee good reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Making implicit premises explicit preserves the arguer's original intent while s...Medieval logic recognized that ordinary language arguments omit steps required f...Ockham's formal consequences valid in virtue of intrinsic middles do not satisfy...Ockham's framework explains why natural arguments feel valid yet need supplement...
    +3 moreShow less
    ST-formalized validity may not capture what makes natural arguments compelling—f...The notion of 'intrinsic' middles is unclear—it's ambiguous whether they're psyc...This framework risks trivializing validity: any invalid argument becomes 'valid'...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit