I think @"NotAristotle" is right insofar as the rule is ambiguous. There is no magical rule-book of logic that settles this issue, and in practice som...
- Of course we appeal to modus ponens. I asked why you think Susie's argument is valid. You gave an argument which you admitted is a presentation of t...
Susie gives an argument. Her premises are inconsistent. Is her argument valid? Do not presuppose the principle of explosion. A. Yes, Susie's argument ...
No, the issue is that if (2) is true then no one can presuppose (1), because the proposition in question is justifiable. The issue is that if (2) is t...
- No, you're wrong. I just had extended conversations with both of them. Tones is adamant that his claim does not presuppose explosion, and Michael is...
Well, in virtue of what do we have a duty to prevent immorality? Do we have a duty to perpetrators? Do we have a duty to victims? Do we have a duty to...
What I gave is a simple reductio: 1. Suppose, "We are brains in vats" can be true even if it is not possible to justify such a proposition 2. "We are ...
@"TonesInDeepFreeze" thinks that any argument with inconsistent premises is valid, and that the principle of explosion does not need to be presupposed...
Yes, you cherry-picked a highly tailored and dialogically misrepresentative quote in order to go out of your way in affirming an idea that no one was ...
You failed to understand the point I was making to Michael. I invite you again, for the third time, to go back and reckon with that point. If you can'...
You focused on something which no one contested. I am inviting you to focus on the point at issue. (Further, the reason NotAristotle is so confused is...
(Michael thinks your construal of validity is true in virtue of the principle of explosion. You explicitly say that it is not. You are obviously disag...
"If the premises are inconsistent then the argument is valid by definition," does not mean that the definition of validity is equivalent to the premis...
Here is what Michael said: NotAristotle: Tones' claim that inconsistent premises make an argument valid by definition seems strange to me. Michael: It...
Well, if your strange interpretation of your definition is not based on explosion, then we are back to square one, and it is simply wrong. "If the pre...
It only "entails" it because it has presupposed it. Else you do disagree with Michael, who thinks that your construal of your definition is nothing ot...
Your interpretation of your definition presupposes explosion. So you would say that someone who does not understand the principle of explosion can app...
I would say that cultures interact in much the same way individuals do. In both cases there are things like exchange, mutual cooperation, conflict, ar...
That's fine if you want to say that the strange way you want to apply your definition is based on explosion, but this is a new claim. Earlier in the t...
The simplest answer here is that (3) is false. The second answer is that even if we grant (3), it then follows that (3) is not unjustifiable. That is,...
The names appear, but where is the claim that they are realists? To take an example at random: Mackie. Here is what your quote says about Mackie: How ...
"Unjustified" and "unjustifiable" are two different things. Michael's post would be entirely innocuous if we misread "unjustified" for "unjustifiable,...
- You quoted the word "unjustified" in response to a quote from Michael that does not contain that word. Instead it contains the word "unjustifiable."...
- If Banno is a realist who fits your characterization then that would be exceedingly helpful. If he had better reading comprehension his affirmation ...
You fished out a single sentence in an SEP article? Who cares? Find a new god to put your faith in. I am asking about realists, not SEP. You need to s...
- This has already been explained to you. (Your contention that argument 2 cannot ever exist without argument 1 is magical, ad hoc thinking. There is ...
- All I've asked is for you to give me an example of a realist who holds to your strange version of realism. You have failed to do that for many posts...
- I don't know of any realists who believe in unknowable truths. Apparently you don't either. The problem with IEP is that it conflates "global skepti...
- This shouldn't be so hard. Argument 1: Argument 2: Two different arguments. You want to claim that argument 2 is an enthymeme of argument 1. But it ...
- Seems like you're arguing against strawmen again. You impute some strange doctrine to realists, and when asked what realists hold this strange doctr...
- The difference between an argument from the definition of validity and an argument from explosion has been explained multiple times throughout this ...
<A thesis which is unconfirmable/unjustifiable is not a real thesis> Realists and anti-realists agree with this proposition. You are manufacturing a d...
That doesn't help. Your argument rides on the vagueness of that word. Consider: You might say that there is a difference between physical possibility ...
Comments