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 Van Cleve's distinction between rule-circular and premise-circular reasoning collapses if any competent reconstruction of the inference makes the reliability claim an implicit suppressed premise.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Implicit premises differ categorically from explicit ones; their status depends on reconstruction methodology, not on logical form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Cleve's distinction concerns the structure of what is *explicitly reasoned*, not all possible idealizations of an argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any argument can be transformed by adding suppressed premises; this doesn't collapse original distinctions, just creates new interpretations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If reliability claims become implicit premises upon competent reconstruction, they function identically to explicit premises in circular arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Van Cleve's distinction relies on what is explicitly stated; hidden premises erase the distinction between rule and premise circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Competent reconstructions aim to reveal all necessary assumptions; concealing reliability claims contradicts logical adequacy.
      ?

      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