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
    Replacing the invalidity condition in SDF with a weaker s... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Replacing the invalidity condition in SDF with a weaker standard of logical weakness would still be inadequate.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hamblin's analysis in 'Fallacies' (1970) shows that begging the question is epistemically defective, not logically weak—its premises are maximally strong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any standard that targets logical weakness as the core defect cannot account for fallacies whose fault lies in epistemic circularity rather than inferential insufficiency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion that fails to classify begging the question as a fallacy is incomplete by the very taxonomy it is meant to systematize.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Woods and Walton demonstrate that many informal fallacies are dialectically defective rather than logically weak, operating at the level of dialogue failure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A weakened logical-weakness standard remains confined to proof-theoretic assessment and cannot capture the pragmatic and dialectical dimensions where fallacies actually operate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since the 'too wide' problem and the begging-the-question gap arise from distinct theoretical levels, no single weakening of one condition can resolve both simultaneously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A weaker logical-weakness standard might resolve the 'too wide' problem by no longer condemning good non-deductive arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.However, begging the question is not a case of logical weakness in any standard sense, so the fallacy of begging the question would remain unaccounted for.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A criterion that fails to classify begging the question as a fallacy is incomple...A weakened logical-weakness standard remains confined to proof-theoretic assessm...A weaker logical-weakness standard might resolve the 'too wide' problem by no lo...Any standard that targets logical weakness as the core defect cannot account for...
    +4 moreShow less
    Hamblin's analysis in 'Fallacies' (1970) shows that begging the question is epis...However, begging the question is not a case of logical weakness in any standard ...Since the 'too wide' problem and the begging-the-question gap arise from distinc...Woods and Walton demonstrate that many informal fallacies are dialectically defe...

    Similar

    There is no systematic theory of invalidity — the only way to prove an...80%Formal validity (condition F) is not sufficient for an argument to be ...79%A weaker logical-weakness standard might resolve the 'too wide' proble...79%Without such evidence, the position that SK is logically possible give...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fallacies
    View source passageHide passage
    SDF may be seen as closely tied to the logical approach to fallacies—the fault in arguments it singles out is their deductive invalidity. But this conception of fallacies turns out to be inadequate to cover the variety of the core fallacies in two ways: it is too narrow because it excludes begging the question which is not invalid, and it is too wide because it condemns good but non-deductive arguments as fallacies (given that they also satisfy the appearance condition) because they are invalid.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit