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
    The argument with premises K and conclusion X is logicall... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument with premises K and conclusion X is logically correct according to Tarski's condition (F)

    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 argument with premises K={'∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)', 'N0'} and conclusion X='¬M00' is intuitively logically correct
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tarski's condition (F) requires that any logically correct argument must survive uniform substitution of non-logical constants: no substitution instance can have true premises and a false conclusion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tarski's condition (F) is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for logical correctness, as Etchemendy (1990) demonstrated with accidentally true generalizations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the domain contains only finitely many objects, substitutional invariance can be satisfied by arguments whose validity depends on contingent cardinality facts, not logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the argument's survival of substitution may reflect a contingent restriction on the domain rather than genuine logical necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Condition (F) presupposes a fixed inventory of logical constants, but Tarski himself admitted no principled criterion distinguishes logical from non-logical expressions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'N' and 'M' could in principle be reclassified as logical constants under an alternative demarcation, the argument's validity would become analytic rather than formal.
      ?

      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

    Condition (F) presupposes a fixed inventory of logical constants, but Tarski him...If 'N' and 'M' could in principle be reclassified as logical constants under an ...If the domain contains only finitely many objects, substitutional invariance can...Tarski's condition (F) is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for logical c...
    +3 moreShow less
    Tarski's condition (F) requires that any logically correct argument must survive...The argument with premises K={'∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)', 'N0'} and conclusion X='¬M00' is in...Therefore, the argument's survival of substitution may reflect a contingent rest...

    Similar

    The argument with premises K={'∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)', 'N0'} and conclusion X='¬...91%For an argument to be logically correct, the conclusion must logically...88%Traditional logical argument requires that the premises and conclusion...87%An argument is valid if its conclusion comes out true under every inte...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: tarski
    View source passageHide passage
    Let’s clarify the sense of condition (F) with an example. Consider a language LAr+ which is like LAr but has besides another individual constant, “2”, and another dyadic predicate, “Pd”, whose desired interpretations are the number 2 and the relation of being the immediate predecessor of, respectively. Let K be the following set of sentences of LAr+: {“∀x(Nx→¬Mx0)”, “N0”} (these sentences are true); and let X be the sentence “¬M00”. The argument with premises K and conclusion X is intuitively lo
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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