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
    The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' is not formally valid

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity requires that an inference hold under uniform substitution of terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' does not hold under uniform substitution (substituting arbitrary species and genus terms need not preserve truth)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's theory of essential predication holds that 'human being' analytically entails 'animal' via real definition, not mere linguistic convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inferences grounded in essential definitions are formally valid because the containment relation is necessary, not contingent on substitution instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Abelard's substitution criterion presupposes a nominalist ontology that Aristotelian realists have principled grounds to reject as a standard for formal validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Medieval logicians including Buridan distinguished 'formal consequence' holding in virtue of logical form from consequences holding in virtue of the meanings of categorematic terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On Buridan's account, an inference valid across all models preserving the semantic content of its constituent terms qualifies as formally valid in a broader, defensible sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Restricting formal validity solely to variable-substitution schemas, as Abelard does, anachronistically imports a Fregean criterion alien to the Aristotelian syllogistic tradition Abelard himself inherited.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Abelard's substitution criterion presupposes a nominalist ontology that Aristote...Aristotle's theory of essential predication holds that 'human being' analyticall...Formal validity requires that an inference hold under uniform substitution of te...Inferences grounded in essential definitions are formally valid because the cont...
    +4 moreShow less
    Medieval logicians including Buridan distinguished 'formal consequence' holding ...On Buridan's account, an inference valid across all models preserving the semant...Restricting formal validity solely to variable-substitution schemas, as Abelard ...The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' does not hol...

    Similar

    The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' ho...94%The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' do...92%The sentence 'If something is human, it is an animal' would be false i...87%Descent to a conjunction of singulars under the predicate of 'Every ma...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: abelard
    View source passageHide passage
    There is another way in which conclusions can be necessary and relevant to their premisses, yet not be formally valid (not be a complete entailment). The necessary connection among the propositions, and the link among their senses, might be a function of non-formal metaphysical truths holding in all possible worlds. For instance, human beings are a kind of animal, so the consequence ‘If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal’ holds of necessity and the sense of the antecedent compels t
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit