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
    The inference in question is not valid based upon its log... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The inference in question is not valid based upon its logical form

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.The opposite of the consequent and the antecedent do not formally imply a contradiction
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two propositions formally imply a contradiction only if they cannot be consistently and distinctively imagined as holding simultaneously
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The opposite of the consequent and the antecedent can be consistently and distinctively imagined as holding simultaneously
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity is not exhausted by syntactic form alone; semantic consequence relations can ground validity independently of form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Buridan and the Parisian tradition held that some inferences are valid in virtue of meaning-constraints that hold necessarily across all models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the antecedent semantically necessitates the consequent through definitional or essential connections, the inference is formally valid even without syntactic uniformity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Consistent imaginability is an insufficient criterion for logical possibility, as Kripke demonstrated with necessary a posteriori truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two propositions are conceivably co-instantiated but metaphysically incompatible, the inference between their negations may still be formally valid.
      ?

      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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Buridan and the Parisian tradition held that some inferences are valid in virtue...Consistent imaginability is an insufficient criterion for logical possibility, a...Formal validity is not exhausted by syntactic form alone; semantic consequence r...If the antecedent semantically necessitates the consequent through definitional ...
    +4 moreShow less
    If two propositions are conceivably co-instantiated but metaphysically incompati...The opposite of the consequent and the antecedent can be consistently and distin...The opposite of the consequent and the antecedent do not formally imply a contra...Two propositions formally imply a contradiction only if they cannot be consisten...

    Similar

    The inference form 'if A then either not-A or not-B, and A; so not-B' ...85%An inference is formally valid in the restricted sense if the opposite...83%Argument S cannot be used to justify inference X if argument S relies ...80%Sophisms involving logical operators require elucidation of logical fo...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: heytesbury
    View source passageHide passage
    It is commonly agreed that such an inference is not valid based upon the form, because the opposite of its consequent and its antecedent do not formally imply a contradiction, where “to imply a contradiction formally” means that these two cannot be distinguished or consistently and distinctively imagined as holding simultaneously. ([Soph] soph. 2 [1494: fol. 83rb])
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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