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
    Relevance logicians (Anderson and Belnap) argue that vali... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A deduction is a valid or acceptable argument whose structure guarantees its validity irrespective of the truth or falsity of its premises

    Relevance logicians (Anderson and Belnap) argue that validity requires the premises to be genuinely relevant to the conclusion, not merely formally connected.

    ?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.Classical logic permits 'explosion': from contradictions, anything follows formally, yet intuitively this seems invalid when premises lack connection to conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In real reasoning, we reject arguments where premises are logically unrelated to conclusions even if formally valid, suggesting relevance captures genuine validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Relevance logic explains why material conditionals with unrelated antecedents and consequents feel defective despite classical validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Relevance is vague and context-dependent; no principled criterion exists for when premises are 'genuinely relevant' versus merely formally connected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Classical logic's formal validity has worked successfully across mathematics, science, and philosophy; relevance logic gains no practical advantages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intuitions about 'relevance' are psychologically driven, not logically grounded; formality is what distinguishes logic from rhetoric or persuasion.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A deduction is a valid or acceptable argument whose structure guarantees its val...Classical logic permits 'explosion': from contradictions, anything follows forma...Classical logic's formal validity has worked successfully across mathematics, sc...In real reasoning, we reject arguments where premises are logically unrelated to...
    +3 moreShow less
    Intuitions about 'relevance' are psychologically driven, not logically grounded;...Relevance is vague and context-dependent; no principled criterion exists for whe...Relevance logic explains why material conditionals with unrelated antecedents an...

    Details

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