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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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