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 What unifies Aristotle's fallacies is their dependence on the concepts of deduction and proof, not dialogue structure

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Sophistici Elenchi is explicitly framed as a treatise on dialectical refutation, where the interlocutor's concessions constitute the normative standard for validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle defines a genuine refutation (elenchos) structurally via the questioner-answerer exchange, making dialogue roles constitutive, not incidental, to what counts as a fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fallacy that deceives no dialectical participant fails Aristotle's own criterion of appearing to refute, which presupposes a dialogical context of appearance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Robin Smith and Jaakko Hintikka have documented that Aristotle's syllogistic in Prior Analytics was itself developed out of interrogative, game-theoretic dialogue procedures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If deduction in Aristotle is genealogically and structurally derivative of dialogue, then grounding fallacies in deduction does not escape grounding them in dialogue structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's fallacies appear across non-dialectical works such as the Prior Analytics
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Apparent deductions underlie apparent refutations as a structural matter
      ?

      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.