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 Suppositional descent from universal statements to singular statements can yield false conclusions from true premises when proper names refer to non-men or deceased individuals

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Proper names like 'Brownie' and 'Tawny' apply to donkeys, not men
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proper name's bearer may die, making a singular conclusion false while the universal premise remains true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference 'Every man is running, therefore Brownie is running' has the same logical form as 'Every man is running, therefore Socrates is running'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supposition theory, as developed by Buridan and Ockham, requires that a term supposit for existing entities within the relevant domain of discourse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Proper names like 'Brownie' fall outside the suppositional range of 'every man' because suppositio personalis is restricted to the actual referents of the subject term.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descending to a singular term outside the subject's suppositional range violates the formal conditions of valid descent, producing material failure regardless of surface logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medieval logicians distinguished ampliation, whereby tensed or modal contexts expand reference beyond present existents, as a necessary condition for valid inference across temporal gaps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without ampliation explicitly governing the universal premise, a deceased individual's name lacks a current suppositum, rendering the descended singular statement without a truth-conferring referent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.John Buridan's treatment of ampliated supposition in the Summulae de Dialectica directly entails that 'Socrates is running' is false when Socrates has no present existence to supposit for.
      ?

      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