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
    The opposite of the consequent is formally incompatible w... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Connected to 2 discussions

    Supports→An inference is formally valid in the restricted sense if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent, but not every application of that form is valid
    Supports→An inference is formally valid in the universal sense if and only if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent and a similar form of argument holds in all applications

    The opposite of the consequent is formally incompatible with the antecedent

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    A similar form of argument holds in all applications (consimilis forma valet in ...An inference is formally valid in the restricted sense if the opposite of its co...An inference is formally valid in the universal sense if and only if the opposit...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    There exist applications of the same form that are not valid

    Similar

    The opposite of the consequent and the antecedent do not formally impl...90%The opposite of the consequent and the antecedent can be consistently ...83%In (A ∧ ¬A) → B, the antecedent A ∧ ¬A and the consequent B need not s...77%Under VSP, only those conditionals where antecedent and consequent sha...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: heytesbury
    View source passageHide passage
    An inference is formally valid in the universal sense if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent and a similar form [of argument] holds in all applications (consimilis forma valet in omni materia) (…) An inference is [formally] valid in the restricted sense if the opposite of its consequent is formally incompatible with its antecedent, but not every such application is valid. ([IHT] arg. 11)

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective