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
    Ockham's formal consequences valid in virtue of intrinsic... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Consequences valid in virtue of intrinsic middles are enthymematic and not valid across all substitutional instances of their terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The (ST) criterion requires validity across all substitutional instances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham's 'intrinsic middles' are implicit suppressed premises that, when made explicit, render the consequence formally valid by (ST).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A consequence that becomes valid upon articulating its implicit logical structure satisfies (ST) at the level of its complete logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Enthymematic incompleteness is a presentational feature, not a structural defect that precludes formal validity under substitutional criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The (ST) criterion, as standardly interpreted, applies to term-replacement across a fixed logical syntax, not across ontological categories of terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ockham's intrinsic middles invoke definitional or essential connections between terms, which constrain admissible substitutions without violating (ST)'s formal intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Buridan and later medieval logicians recognized that meaning-constitutive relationships between terms can ground formal consequence without breaching substitutional criteria.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A consequence that becomes valid upon articulating its implicit logical structur...Buridan and later medieval logicians recognized that meaning-constitutive relati...Consequences valid in virtue of intrinsic middles are enthymematic and not valid...Enthymematic incompleteness is a presentational feature, not a structural defect...
    +4 moreShow less
    Ockham's 'intrinsic middles' are implicit suppressed premises that, when made ex...Ockham's intrinsic middles invoke definitional or essential connections between ...The (ST) criterion requires validity across all substitutional instancesThe (ST) criterion, as standardly interpreted, applies to term-replacement acros...

    Similar

    Ockham holds that formal consequences are those that hold in virtue of...86%Ockham's formal consequences valid in virtue of extrinsic middles sati...83%Consequences valid in virtue of intrinsic middles are enthymematic and...83%Formal consequences immediately valid in virtue of extrinsic middles a...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequence-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    Notice however that ‘Socrates is not running, therefore a man is not running’ and ‘Only a man is a donkey, therefore every donkey is a man’ are both formal consequences for Ockham (since both hold in virtue of middles), whereas the former is clearly an enthymeme, not valid in all substitutional instances of the terms ‘Socrates’, ‘man’, and ‘running’, thus not satisfying (ST) (see (Crimi 2018) on the extensional discrepancy between Ockham’s notion of formal consequence and Buridan’s (ST)-based no
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit