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
    Sophisms involving logical operators require elucidation ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Sophisms involving logical operators require elucidation of logical form, not revision of inference rules

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The underlying inference rules in sophisms are assumed to be legitimate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sophisms arise from misapplication of legitimate inference rules, not from defects in the rules themselves
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Priest's dialetheism demonstrates that certain logical paradoxes (e.g., the Liar) resist purely formal disambiguation and demand revision of classical inference rules like ex contradictione quodlibet.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If sophisms involving self-reference or semantic closure cannot be dissolved by clarifying logical form alone, then the inference rules permitting such derivations are themselves defective.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medieval obligationes literature, including Heytesbury's own contemporaries like Burley, treated certain sophisms as revealing genuine indeterminacy in consequence relations, not mere misapplication of agreed rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When competent logicians systematically disagree about which inferences are valid in a sophismatic context, the dispute concerns the rules themselves, not merely their application to an obscure logical form.
      ?

      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

    If sophisms involving self-reference or semantic closure cannot be dissolved by ...Medieval obligationes literature, including Heytesbury's own contemporaries like...Priest's dialetheism demonstrates that certain logical paradoxes (e.g., the Liar...Sophisms arise from misapplication of legitimate inference rules, not from defec...
    +2 moreShow less
    The underlying inference rules in sophisms are assumed to be legitimateWhen competent logicians systematically disagree about which inferences are vali...

    Similar

    The inference in question is not valid based upon its logical form79%Deductive logic does not judge the correctness of premises but only ad...77%Indirect inference is an important logical method76%For an argument to be logically correct, the conclusion must logically...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: heytesbury
    View source passageHide passage
    [IHT] is a collection of arguments for both the validity and invalidity of spurious inferences. Typically, the pro-arguments construe them as instances of formal inference rules (bona et formalis), the contra-arguments argue that they are not valid (non valet), and the resolutions show that the inference under scrutiny is not a genuine instance of such a rule. This method presupposes that deductive validity is ultimately truth-preservation (an inference is valid if its consequent cannot be false
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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