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
    Premise combination should be restricted so that adding i... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Logical validity requires that premises be relevant to the conclusion they support

    Premise combination should be restricted so that adding irrelevant material Y does not preserve a valid deduction

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    If X and A together entail B, then X must be relevant to ALogical validity requires that premises be relevant to the conclusion they suppo...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Independent conditions can be combined or omitted in all possible comb...73%One must either relax the condition for being 'purely inferential' or ...72%The strictest criterion for purely inferential rules cannot be met by ...70%A deduction is an argument in which when certain things are laid down ...70%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: logic-substructural
    View source passageHide passage
    Many people have wanted to give an account of logical validity which pays some attention to conditions of relevance. If \(X,A \vdash B\) holds, then \(X\) must somehow be relevant to \(A\). Premise combination is restricted in the following way. We may have \(X \vdash A\) without also having \(X,Y \vdash A\) . The new material \(Y\) might not be relevant to the deduction. In the 1950s, Moh (1950), Church (1951) and Ackermann (1956) all gave accounts of what a ‘relevant’ logic could be. The idea

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective