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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The social and pragmatic factors determining logical choice (Carnap's principle of tolerance) indicate conventionality, not a priori necessity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Pragmatic success of a logical system presupposes underlying logical principles governing what 'success' and 'utility' even mean—these cannot themselves be conventional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The law of non-contradiction appears to constrain rational choice itself; rejecting it seems self-defeating rather than merely pragmatically sub-optimal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conventionality requires that alternatives are genuinely equivalent; yet different logics make incompatible claims about truth-values, suggesting real disagreement, not mere choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Different logical systems (classical, intuitionistic, paraconsistent) succeed in different contexts, suggesting choice among them is pragmatic rather than discovery-based.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Carnap demonstrated that adopting new logical frameworks depends on their utility for scientific goals, not on conformity to pre-existing logical truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If logical laws were a priori necessary, rational agents with identical information would never legitimately adopt different logical systems.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42