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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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