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 supporting argument's use of de Morgan's Laws implicitly invokes double negation elimination, which is intuitionistically inadmissible and thus smuggles in a non-neutral logical commitment.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.De Morgan's Laws hold in intuitionistic logic without invoking double negation: ¬(A ∧ B) → (¬A ∨ ¬B) is intuitionistically valid regardless of eliminability concerns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Applying classical logical forms is not inherently 'smuggling' commitments—it's transparent methodology; the real issue is whether intuitionistic constraints are justified as neutral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling classical logic 'non-neutral' assumes intuitionionism is the neutral baseline, but constructivity is itself a substantive philosophical commitment, not a default.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.De Morgan's Laws require that ¬(A ∧ B) equals (¬A ∨ ¬B), which demands double negation elimination to derive constructive content from negations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intuitionionism rejects double negation elimination because it treats ¬¬P as epistemically weaker than P, making classical logical equivalences unjustified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Using classical logic rules without acknowledging their non-neutral commitments misrepresents arguments as logically neutral when they embed specific metaphysical 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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42