Demanding that a genealogical argument first presuppose the falsity of its target conclusion conflates the dialectical burden of proof: debunking arguments are defeasible, not question-begging, unless the realist provides positive evidence of tracking.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Key Terms

Dialectical burden of proof(as used in logic and argumentation): In a debate or discussion, the responsibility that falls on the person making a claim to actually provide evidence for it; you can't just assert something and expect others to disprove you.
Genealogical argument(as used in metaphysics and epistemology): An argument that tries to debunk an idea by tracing where it came from and showing that its origins are suspicious or unreliable (like arguing that a belief is false because it only exists due to evolutionary pressures, not because it's actually true).
Presuppose(what both foundationalisms supposedly do): To assume or take for granted something as true in order to make an argument work, without proving it first.
Target conclusion(as used in logic): The main claim or belief that an argument is trying to attack or disprove.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Explore a random proposition

Start fresh with something unrelated.

Tracking(as used in epistemology and philosophy of mind)

In philosophy, this means reliably responding to or being guided by something—like how a compass 'tracks' magnetic north.

debunking arguments(Moral skepticism literature)

Arguments that use Darwinian explanations of the origins and persistence of morality to undermine the truth-aptness or epistemic status of moral beliefs.

defeasible(Characterizing the logical status of criterial evidence)

An inference is defeasible when countervailing considerations can weigh against the support a premise provides, potentially nullifying it altogether.

question-begging(Epistemology, anti-skeptical argumentation)

A charge leveled against anti-skeptical arguments that assume what they set out to prove, particularly in Putnamian externalist arguments

realist(metaphysics/epistemology)

The view that certain things (like truth, morality, or reality) exist independently of what anyone thinks or believes about them.

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 0 (0 for, 0 against)
Edits: 1 edit

Open for perspectives

This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

Share the first perspective

Demanding that a genealogical argument first presuppose the falsity of its target conclusion conflates the dialectical burden of proof: debunking arguments are defeasible, not question-begging, unless the realist provides positive evidence of tracking.

Next step

Connections

Related

Details

Open for perspectives