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 in question is not valid based upon its logical form

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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