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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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