If the source of invalidity is ontological rather than semantic, detection requires philosophical knowledge that exceeds 'extra-logical' subject-matter knowledge as the claim envisions it.

?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.

Ontological: "Ontological" refers to questions about what actually exists or is real. It's concerned with the fundamental nature of being—asking "What kinds of things are there?" rather than "How do we know about them?" For example, an ontological question might be whether numbers, ideas, or God actually exist as real things, or if they're just human inventions.
extra-logical subject-matter knowledge(contrasted with philosophical knowledge): Understanding about a specific topic (like biology or history) that goes beyond just knowing the rules of logic.
invalidity(describing the problem being analyzed): When an argument or claim fails to be logically correct—the conclusion doesn't actually follow from the reasons given.
knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.): Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

Based on where you are in your exploration