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
    The laws of logic are empirical generalizations about suc... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The laws of logic are a priori theoretical norms

    The laws of logic are empirical generalizations about successful patterns of inference, revisable in light of scientific practice (Quine, 'Two Dogmas').

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Scientific revolutions (Copernican, quantum mechanics) required abandoning previously 'logical' assumptions about reality's structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logic systems are human tools developed through practice; non-Euclidean geometries show axioms once thought necessary are actually contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Our confidence in classical logic derives from its predictive success in ordinary contexts, not from a priori necessity independent of experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Revising logic itself requires using logic; claiming logic is empirical undermines the intelligibility of any empirical claim or evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical laws (like non-contradiction) appear necessary for *any* coherent discourse; no scientific discovery could make 'true and false' both correct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing between adopting new logics and abandoning logic requires standards of inference prior to and independent of empirical science.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Distinguishing between adopting new logics and abandoning logic requires standar...Logic systems are human tools developed through practice; non-Euclidean geometri...Logical laws (like non-contradiction) appear necessary for *any* coherent discou...Our confidence in classical logic derives from its predictive success in ordinar...
    +3 moreShow less
    Revising logic itself requires using logic; claiming logic is empirical undermin...Scientific revolutions (Copernican, quantum mechanics) required abandoning previ...The laws of logic are a priori theoretical norms

    Details

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