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
    Therefore, the wrongness of logical fallacies is fully ex... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical fallacies, but logical fallacies must also be explicable in terms of epistemic seriousness.

    Therefore, the wrongness of logical fallacies is fully explicable in syntactic terms without invoking epistemic seriousness as a necessary condition.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Logical fallacies violate formal rules of valid inference regardless of the propositions' truth-value or epistemic status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The defect in begging the question or affirming the consequent is purely structural and detectable through syntactic analysis alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Epistemic seriousness concerns speaker intention and belief-formation, which are separable from logical form's normativity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An argument's logical form is syntactically identical whether premises are vacuous, metaphorical, or substantive—yet intuitive wrongness varies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Syntactic rules alone cannot explain why some formally invalid arguments retain rational persuasiveness in serious epistemic contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The normativity of logic depends on its role in truth-seeking; purely syntactic description lacks the evaluative force needed to ground wrongness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    An argument's logical form is syntactically identical whether premises are vacuo...Epistemic seriousness concerns speaker intention and belief-formation, which are...Logical fallacies violate formal rules of valid inference regardless of the prop...Syntactic rules alone cannot explain why some formally invalid arguments retain ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The defect in begging the question or affirming the consequent is purely structu...The epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical fallacies, but logical ...The normativity of logic depends on its role in truth-seeking; purely syntactic ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit