Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A reductio that depends on the very cognitive continuity it denies is self-undermining as an account of what grounds the analytical enterprise itself.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A reductio can be valid even if the targeted position is self-undermining; validity doesn't require the arguer's position to be sound.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Cognitive continuity for *analysis* may differ from continuity of the *self*—conflating them begs the question.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some reductios merely show a position is absurd without requiring the reductionist to endorse an alternative view.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Self-refuting arguments require the arguer to presuppose what they deny, making them performatively incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Analysis itself depends on sustained mental identity across premise-evaluation to conclusion-drawing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A reductio denying cognitive continuity undermines its own validity as a rational proof.
?
How convincing is this?
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.