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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42