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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.