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 Prawitz and Dummett's harmony criterion accommodates introduction rules that appeal to absurdity without violating inferentialist purity, since falsum carries no non-inferential content.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Falsum's elimination rule (ex falso) itself presupposes understanding what absurdity is, suggesting non-inferential conceptual content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reductio ad absurdum introduces negation indirectly; harmony requires explicit bidirectional rules, which absurdity-based rules seem to lack.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If falsum has purely inferential content, the harmony criterion becomes circular: falsum's role is defined only by rules already being checked for harmony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Falsum is defined purely through elimination rules (ex falso quodlibet), having no introduction conditions independent of inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Introduction rules appealing to absurdity preserve harmony by deriving falsum through standard inference, not by asserting it non-inferentially.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Inferentialist purity requires only that content is determined by inferential role, not that all rules avoid negation or contradiction.
      ?

      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.