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 Aristotelian syllogism is insufficient as the sole model of argumentation

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle himself distinguished demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical syllogisms in the Prior Analytics, Topics, and Rhetoric respectively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A framework that explicitly encompasses probabilistic enthymemes and topical reasoning cannot be charged with restricting argumentation to formal demonstration alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Valla's critique therefore attacks a scholastic caricature of Aristotle rather than the full Aristotelian logical corpus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The dilemma and sorites are reducible to chains of conditional syllogisms via hypothetical syllogistic, as Theophrastus and later Leibniz demonstrated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If all contested argument forms are formalizable within extended syllogistic, the claim that syllogism is insufficient loses its primary evidential basis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There exist valid forms of argumentation — such as the dilemma, paradox, and sorites — that cannot be easily forced into the syllogistic form
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The rhetorician must use forms beyond the syllogism to persuade
      ?

      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.