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 objection that Norton's notion of argument is too vague is not the best objection against Norton

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Arguments can be deductive or inductive
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deductive arguments are perfectly clear
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If inductive arguments are unclear, the fault lies with induction itself rather than with Norton's view of argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Norton's argument schema must distinguish valid from invalid thought experiments, but his criteria fail to exclude circular reasoning dressed as empirical insight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sorensen's analysis shows thought experiments like Galileo's falling bodies resist clean reconstruction as either deductive or inductive arguments, exposing a genuine classificatory gap in Norton's framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The more damaging objection, advanced by Brown, is that Norton's view cannot account for a priori knowledge generated by thought experiments about abstracta like numbers or logical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Norton's reconstructed arguments require empirical premises to do epistemic work, they systematically misrepresent the modal and mathematical thought experiments that constitute his strongest counterexamples.
      ?

      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.