Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Quine's naturalism establishes that no proposition is immune from revision in light of recalcitrant experience, including logical laws.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Revising logic itself requires using logic to argue for the revision, making the claim self-undermining and incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Apparent logic revisions (quantum logic) are better explained as changes in *models* or *interpretation*, not in fundamental logical laws.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some propositions (like non-contradiction) seem necessarily true independent of experience; granting this limits Quine's universality claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Scientific history shows logic itself has been revised: classical logic abandoned for quantum logic in some interpretations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If logic were unrevisable, we couldn't explain why we rationally abandoned certain logical principles across different domains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quine's holism shows beliefs form an interconnected web where even core logical beliefs can absorb empirical pressure from the periphery.
?
How convincing is this?
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.