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 epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical fallacies, but logical fallacies must also be explicable in terms of epistemic seriousness.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity is a purely structural property of arguments, defined independently of any epistemic agent or justificatory context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A fallacy like affirming the consequent is erroneous even in cases where the conclusion happens to be epistemically well-supported by independent evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the wrongness of logical fallacies is fully explicable in syntactic terms without invoking epistemic seriousness as a necessary condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hamblin's 'Fallacies' (1970) demonstrated that attempts to unify fallacy theory under a single normative framework consistently fail to capture the heterogeneity of fallacious reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic justification norms are agent-relative and context-sensitive, while logical invalidity is agent-neutral and context-invariant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reducing the wrongness of logical fallacies to epistemic fault conflates two distinct normative domains, obscuring rather than illuminating why formal errors constitute failures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The epistemic account holds that the function of arguments is epistemic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Anything that counts as a fallacy must be an epistemic fault — a breaking of a rule of epistemic justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical faults are also epistemic faults.
      ?

      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.