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 logical incompatibility thesis leads to the implausible implication that any game in which a rule is broken ends at the point of rule-breaking

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The logical incompatibility thesis holds that rule-breaking is incompatible with gameplaying
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rule-breaking is incompatible with gameplaying, then any foul or accidental transgression of the rules would cause the game to end
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Games regularly involve fouls and accidental transgressions without ending (e.g., false starts in sprinting, strategic fouls in basketball, shots hit out in tennis)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Searle's distinction between regulative and constitutive rules entails that violating a constitutive rule destroys the very activity the rule constitutes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The rules defining fouls in basketball are constitutive, not merely regulative, so a foul does not break the game's constitutive rules but instantiates them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, foul rules are part of the constitutive structure, meaning their violation triggers defined in-game consequences rather than terminating the game-instance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Suits's lusory attitude analysis entails that accepting the constitutive rules is what makes one a game-player, so rejecting them mid-game dissolves one's status as a player.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When a sprinter commits a false start, the race officials apply a penalty rule that is itself constitutive, meaning no genuine race-instance was ever completed up to that point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The logical incompatibility thesis is thus vindicated: the false-start scenario shows the race did end at transgression, and what continues is a new or resumed game-instance, not the original one.
      ?

      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.