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 'Only a man is a donkey, therefore every do... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The inference 'Only a man is a donkey, therefore every donkey is a man' satisfies the substitutional criterion (ST)

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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 substitutional criterion (ST) requires validity across all substitutional instances of the relevant terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference 'Only a man is a donkey, therefore every donkey is a man' is valid in all substitutional instances of 'donkey' and 'man'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The substitutional criterion (ST) requires uniform substitution across ALL non-logical terms, not just the subject and predicate terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In 'Only a man is a donkey', the logical form of 'only' restricts the substitution class in ways that make the inference trivially valid due to the impossibility of the premise, not genuine formal validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Buridan and Ockham distinguished between inferences valid by form and those valid by the impossibility of their premises, and conflating these undermines ST as a criterion of logical consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Substitutional validity requires that no uniform substitution of non-logical terms produces a true premise and false conclusion, but this test fails to distinguish formal from material consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Only a man is a donkey' is necessarily false in all interpretations, any inference from it passes ST vacuously, which medieval logicians like John Buridan explicitly identified as a defect of purely substitutional accounts.
      ?

      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 LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Buridan and Ockham distinguished between inferences valid by form and those vali...If 'Only a man is a donkey' is necessarily false in all interpretations, any inf...In 'Only a man is a donkey', the logical form of 'only' restricts the substituti...Substitutional validity requires that no uniform substitution of non-logical ter...
    +3 moreShow less
    The inference 'Only a man is a donkey, therefore every donkey is a man' is valid...The substitutional criterion (ST) requires uniform substitution across ALL non-l...The substitutional criterion (ST) requires validity across all substitutional in...

    Similar

    The inference 'Only a man is a donkey, therefore every donkey is a man...97%The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' do...81%Every donkey is a man79%The inference 'If Socrates is a human being, Socrates is an animal' is...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequence-medieval
    View source passageHide passage
    Notice however that ‘Socrates is not running, therefore a man is not running’ and ‘Only a man is a donkey, therefore every donkey is a man’ are both formal consequences for Ockham (since both hold in virtue of middles), whereas the former is clearly an enthymeme, not valid in all substitutional instances of the terms ‘Socrates’, ‘man’, and ‘running’, thus not satisfying (ST) (see (Crimi 2018) on the extensional discrepancy between Ockham’s notion of formal consequence and Buridan’s (ST)-based no
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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