Either you misunderstood my implied message or I didn't make it clear enough. Probably the latter :)
I was not negating the possibility of absolute, or at least provable, truth. I was simply saying that the strength of a logical argument often depends upon the strength of the premises and the coverage of the premises upon the argument space (i.e. is there enough supporting statement to prove a point conclusively, etc.). In topics of hot debate today, I believe people do not either have the time or the mental capacity (some topics are too complex) to grasp every needed premise or prerequisite to support an argument fully. Thus do I weigh conclusions based on the strength and coverage of the premises (assuming the argument structure is valid and well-formed).
I need to learn to refraim from replying to people's posts, when I have major setbacks:
I may be all laughs and learning something from it on the surface, but deep down I'm frustrated and that comes out as bitchyness and leaping before looking so to speak.
I don't think supporting all of your premises is necessary as long as you don't resort to actual fallacies in the process . . . there, that's as much philosophy as I can spout. My hubby is wearing off on my a bit ;)
I was just trying to say if an issue is argued from different sides and the logic structure used is valid on all counts (i.e. no fallacies) then the strength of the conclusion can only be a strong as that of the supporting premises. :)
Comments 6
Reply
I was not negating the possibility of absolute, or at least provable, truth. I was simply saying that the strength of a logical argument often depends upon the strength of the premises and the coverage of the premises upon the argument space (i.e. is there enough supporting statement to prove a point conclusively, etc.). In topics of hot debate today, I believe people do not either have the time or the mental capacity (some topics are too complex) to grasp every needed premise or prerequisite to support an argument fully. Thus do I weigh conclusions based on the strength and coverage of the premises (assuming the argument structure is valid and well-formed).
Reply
I may be all laughs and learning something from it on the surface, but deep down I'm frustrated and that comes out as bitchyness and leaping before looking so to speak.
Reply
Reply
I don't think supporting all of your premises is necessary as long as you don't resort to actual fallacies in the process . . . there, that's as much philosophy as I can spout. My hubby is wearing off on my a bit ;)
Reply
I was just trying to say if an issue is argued from different sides and the logic structure used is valid on all counts (i.e. no fallacies) then the strength of the conclusion can only be a strong as that of the supporting premises. :)
Hope you had/are haveing a great trip :)
Reply
Leave a comment