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
    Quine and Ullian distinguish between genuine paradoxes an... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The negation of any of a person's beliefs counts as a paradox under Sainsbury's definition

    Quine and Ullian distinguish between genuine paradoxes and mere formal contradictions—the former require that all premises appear independently plausible, not merely believed.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Paradoxes generate genuine philosophical puzzlement only when premises seem individually rational, distinguishing them from trivial logical errors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psychology of belief matters: we resist conclusions from premises we never found credible, but fight hard against paradoxes that trap justified beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This distinction guides productive inquiry—paradoxes demand we revise logic or concepts, while contradictions merely need formal error-checking.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Independent plausibility is subjective and context-dependent; what seems plausible to experts may not to others, making the distinction unstable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A formal contradiction with jointly inconsistent but individually plausible premises is still just a contradiction—the psychology doesn't change logical structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction conflates pedagogical interest with metaphysical importance; a contradiction's philosophical significance doesn't depend on our credence-ranking.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A formal contradiction with jointly inconsistent but individually plausible prem...Independent plausibility is subjective and context-dependent; what seems plausib...Paradoxes generate genuine philosophical puzzlement only when premises seem indi...Psychology of belief matters: we resist conclusions from premises we never found...
    +3 moreShow less
    The distinction conflates pedagogical interest with metaphysical importance; a c...The negation of any of a person's beliefs counts as a paradox under Sainsbury's ...This distinction guides productive inquiry—paradoxes demand we revise logic or c...

    Details

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