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 historical belief in naive set comprehension (pre-Russell) shows agents can hold contradictory beliefs without suspending propositional assent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Pre-Russell mathematicians suspended comprehension assent once Russell's paradox was published, suggesting they did not truly hold the contradictory belief.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Failure to recognize contradiction differs from tolerating it; agents may hold contradictory beliefs only through ignorance, not genuine acceptance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates psychological fact (agents can be inconsistent) with philosophical claim (contradiction is rationally permissible), which are distinct issues.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Pre-Russell mathematicians accepted comprehension axiom and derived contradictions without rejecting either belief, showing tolerance for contradiction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cognitive capacity limits mean agents can hold inconsistent beliefs in separate mental compartments without recognizing their incompatibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical practice reveals agents distinguish between assenting to a belief and assenting to its logical consequences, enabling contradiction tolerance.
?
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.