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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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