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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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