Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The explanandum (why exclusion rather than inclusion became salient) is smuggled into the explanans, rendering the argument circular.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Explaining salience through structural conditions (power, resources, threats) avoids circularity if those conditions are independently verified.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim of circularity conflates 'mentioning exclusion in the explanation' with 'assuming exclusion without justification.'
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Many explanations necessarily reference their explanandum; this is descriptive accuracy, not logical circularity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The argument assumes exclusion became salient without explaining why that salience emerged rather than inclusion's salience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion (exclusion's salience) appears in the premises without independent justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A non-circular explanation must identify prior causal factors external to the explanandum itself.
?
How convincing is this?
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.