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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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