Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The objection that Norton's notion of argument is too vag... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The objection that Norton's notion of argument is too vague is not the best objection against Norton

    No other argument is betterPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Norton's argument schema must distinguish valid from invalid thought experiments, but his criteria fail to exclude circular reasoning dressed as empirical insight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sorensen's analysis shows thought experiments like Galileo's falling bodies resist clean reconstruction as either deductive or inductive arguments, exposing a genuine classificatory gap in Norton's framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The more damaging objection, advanced by Brown, is that Norton's view cannot account for a priori knowledge generated by thought experiments about abstracta like numbers or logical possibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Norton's reconstructed arguments require empirical premises to do epistemic work, they systematically misrepresent the modal and mathematical thought experiments that constitute his strongest counterexamples.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Arguments can be deductive or inductive
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Deductive arguments are perfectly clear
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If inductive arguments are unclear, the fault lies with induction itself rather than with Norton's view of argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageNo other argument is better

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Arguments can be deductive or inductiveDeductive arguments are perfectly clearIf Norton's reconstructed arguments require empirical premises to do epistemic w...If inductive arguments are unclear, the fault lies with induction itself rather ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Norton's argument schema must distinguish valid from invalid thought experiments...Sorensen's analysis shows thought experiments like Galileo's falling bodies resi...The more damaging objection, advanced by Brown, is that Norton's view cannot acc...

    Similar

    Fallacy theory is inadequate as a general account of argument80%An objection must engage the actual premises of an argument, not a wea...79%Williams' argument is more general than Counterfactual Motivation acco...79%Broome's argument for the vagueness interpretation of comparatives is ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: thought-experiment
    View source passageHide passage
    There are three objections that might be offered against Norton. First, his notion of argument is too vague. However, this might not be the best objection: arguments can be deductive (which are perfectly clear) or inductive. If the latter are unclear, the fault is with induction, not with Norton’s argument view. Second, it is argued that Norton simply begs the question: every real world experiment can be rephrased as an argument, but nobody would say that real world experiences are dispensable.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit