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
    Reasoning (syllogism and induction) cannot by itself prod... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Reasoning (syllogism and induction) cannot by itself produce new knowledge

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Syllogism only ensures there is no contradiction between existing insights and shows how insights are connected
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Induction only draws attention to different sides of a particular insight and teaches recognition of it in different forms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Neither syllogism nor induction create anything beyond what is already contained in existing variation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal deductive systems like Peano arithmetic generate theorems that their axioms do not explicitly contain, as Gödel's incompleteness results demonstrate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If syllogism merely unpacked pre-contained content, no mathematical proof would ever surprise or extend mathematical knowledge, yet history shows otherwise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill argued that inductive inference from particular observations to universal laws genuinely extends knowledge beyond the observed instances, not merely reorganizes them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Peirce's account of abduction shows that inference to the best explanation produces novel hypotheses irreducible to the evidential base, constituting a third form of reasoning Mach's dichotomy ignores.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Formal deductive systems like Peano arithmetic generate theorems that their axio...If syllogism merely unpacked pre-contained content, no mathematical proof would ...Induction only draws attention to different sides of a particular insight and te...Mill argued that inductive inference from particular observations to universal l...
    +3 moreShow less
    Neither syllogism nor induction create anything beyond what is already contained...Peirce's account of abduction shows that inference to the best explanation produ...

    Similar

    Neither syllogism nor induction create anything beyond what is already...87%Premises themselves may be arbitrary, so syllogistic necessity does no...76%Aristotle's syllogistic necessity is epistemologically insufficient as...76%The Nomological-Explanatory solution to the problem of induction begs ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ernst-mach
    View source passageHide passage
    The mind is not able to come up with new ideas on its own, that is, it is unable to direct creativity. Thus, variation is not directed, but science relies on fantasy, chance, luck, etc., for production of its ideas. Once produced, scientists choose those ideas which best fit the facts. Mach also comments on the debates over whether reasoning, inductive or deductive, can produce knowledge, arguing that reasoning cannot by itself produce knowledge, but rather can only operate on existing variation
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Syllogism only ensures there is no contradiction between existing insights and s...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit