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 laws of logic are a priori theoretical norms

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The laws of logic are empirical generalizations about successful patterns of inference, revisable in light of scientific practice (Quine, 'Two Dogmas').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logical laws are empirically revisable, they cannot be a priori norms immune to experiential disconfirmation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quantum mechanics has motivated serious proposals to revise classical logic (e.g., quantum logic, Putnam 1968), demonstrating empirical sensitivity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Different logical systems (classical, intuitionist, paraconsistent) each govern valid inference within distinct mathematical or linguistic communities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If logical laws were a priori norms binding on every cognizer, systematic logical pluralism across competent reasoners would be inexplicable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The social and pragmatic factors determining logical choice (Carnap's principle of tolerance) indicate conventionality, not a priori necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A priori theoretical norms are those whose recognition is necessary for making universally valid judgments
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Universally valid judgments claim truth for every cognizer
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Recognition of the laws of logic is necessary for making judgments that claim truth for every cognizer
      ?

      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.