User Tools

Site Tools


Sidebar

Sample statement

Assumptions

(Don't confuse these with premises. A premise is something necessary for the argument. An assumption is something necessary to even hold the conversation. For example, if you're wanting to argue with someone about whether tacos are the best Mexican food, something like “food exists” and “the world exists” would be obvious assumptions; without them, you can't even talk about what the best Mexican food is. “Tacos are the least spicy food” is a premise.)

(Some assumptions are in just about every argument by necessity. These can be grouped together into standard sets as the users of this site notice common assumptions that are necessarily repeated over and over. One such “set” is the first assumption below.)

Argument

∴ sample statement is true

(Arguments are always represented as statements that can be their own point of debate (such as “grass is green” or “God is evil”) or as conditional statements (such as “If God is good, He would not commit evil.”); all of these can become their own points of discussion. If you want to defend why any of these are true, go to that page and make a defense there.

A key rule in constructing an argument is to make it in as few arguments as possible: strip away everything unnecessary. If it becomes long, condense some of the points into one and further explain the argument in that point's page.

While the current formulation of this website cannot do it well (Though, if you're a web developer and want to change that, contact us!), it is a good idea to survey if statements you make have already been made before elsewhere on the site.

The concluding statement is always the same: “[the statement]” or (if it needs it) “[the statement] is true”

The penultimate premise is always the same: “if the above is true, then [the statement]” or “if the above is true, then [the statement] is true” This allows every argument to be critiqued for its logic instead of the premises themselves.)

Definitions

(This is where you explain the words used in the statement in order to be as clear as possible. Words can mean completely different things in different contexts, and an argument can rise or fall on its definitions.

Definitions of a premise in an argument belong on the personal page of the premise itself.)

Analogies

(Analogies do not count as the evidence itself; they are simply there to help one understand the argument)

Notable Defenders of this Position

(Please cite in full author, Chicago-style bibliography format)

Counter-Argument

It is not that sample statement is true

(Counter-arguments are always the statement itself preceeded by “It is not that”)

(Important: counter-arguments do not refute any of the premises or the logic of the argument itself. Instead, they present a completely different argument which, if true, means that the statement here must be false (regardless of the arguments). In philosophy, this is called a Modus Tollens.)

Talk

Like the talk page of a Wiki article, this is a section not to debate the statement, but to discuss ways of improving the page. It may also be used to discuss whether the analogies appropriately or helpfully/unhelpfully reflect the statement and ways they can be improved.

old revision restored (2025/11/03 23:39)
what_s_this_all_about

What is Carmelics all about?

We all share important questions. In fact, they're really important. Like, course-of-your-life-altering, fate-of-the-world-determining, important. But how do we go about answering them?

The common strategy is to find someone you trust or enjoy who has assuredly thought about these issues much more than you have and believe whatever they say. But now you're putting the fate of your life (and the course of the nation) in the brain and hands of someone else. Is it worth it? Is it safe?

Another option is to do your own research. The problem here, though, is that it takes so long. Not everyone has the time to read 100 books on the existence of God just to get an idea of the arguments and figure out if God exists. You're reading a whole lot of the same information over and over, and it's just not efficient. Plus, scholars are not very hesitant to tell you that there is an endless amount to read and learn; there's just no way to read all the books that ought to be read. Your life just doesn't have enough time, so eventually you have to circle back around and trust someone, bringing you to the first strategy again.

Carmelics attempts to be an avenue for a third option. Using the art of hierarchical syllogisms, every argument can be presented once, and only once, in a structure that allows you to get a bird's-eye view of the entire discussion. By clicking on the parts of the arguments that interest you, it allows you to explore the arguments that you want to learn more about so that you can learn as efficiently as possible. That way, all the facts and beliefs can be laid out in as simple a manner as possible, once and for all, so that you can effectively evaluate the different beliefs the world holds and find the conclusions that actually make the most sense.

Where does all the content come from? You! If you're willing to learn how to structure arguments, this humble site would greatly appreciate any questions or theories you would like to develop for the sake of all others who may stumble on this site.


Sound interesting? You can join in the discussion by learning how to format statements properly and adding arguments to the discussions–your own or popular ones of history.

If you're weeping at the awful state of this website, you might be a web developer. Want to help make this better? Please get in contact! loyalcj@outlook.com

If you're a philosopher, you might notice a couple limitations of this strategy: can the same arguments, reduced to be a simple as possible, be represented in multiple different types of syllogistic arguments? When linking similar arguments, who gets to decide when one argument is the exact same as another? Is this favoring a coherentist approach to knowledge by its very design? While I (Loyal) don't find problems with any of these, I would be happy to talk with you about any of them. It remains to be demonstrated, however, whether arguments can have multiple valid structures or if the very nature of a structure biases people toward a conclusion.

Why the name Carmelics?

Thanks for visiting!

Loyal Juraschek 2021/05/24 11:20

what_s_this_all_about.txt · Last modified: 2025/12/20 06:24 by 216.73.216.181