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 Relevant logic's variable-sharing condition (VSP) conflates syntactic topic-overlap with semantic relevance, rejecting valid inferences on purely formal grounds that have no metaphysical basis.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.VSP captures genuine intuitions about relevance: 'snow is white' and 'Paris is pretty' seem irrelevant premises for any mixed-topic conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without VSP-like restrictions, explosion and disjunctive syllogism permit deriving any conclusion from contradictions, abandoning meaningful constraint on inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Variable-sharing is a principled, checkable criterion for relevance; rejecting it requires a better formal account of what makes premises semantically relevant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.VSP rejects A∨¬A→B solely because B shares no propositional variable with the antecedent, ignoring that this is logically valid in classical logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Semantic relevance requires a meaningful connection in truth-conditions, not mere syntactic overlap—two logically independent propositions can be relevantly connected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring variable-sharing conflates relevance with entailment; A can be relevant to B's truth without B appearing in A's truth-functional structure.
      ?

      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.