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 'silent premise' move in reconstructing arguments (per Toulmin's critique of syllogistic models) smuggles in logical form that need not reflect the speaker's actual commitments.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some silent premises are genuinely entailed by what speakers assert; denying them makes the stated argument logically invalid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing 'actual commitments' from logical entailments requires psychological access we lack; reconstruction can be more objective.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Toulmin's critique conflates the logical form of arguments with speakers' conscious reasoning; these are different standards.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Speakers often reason intuitively without formal logical structure; imposing syllogistic form distorts their actual inferential process.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Silent premises risk attributing commitments speakers would reject upon reflection, violating charitable interpretation principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Natural language argumentation relies on context and ellipsis; reconstructing implicit steps introduces interpretive assumptions.
      ?

      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.