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 supporting argument commits a pragmatic fallacy by co... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The two components of a moral argument — defending moral realism and arguing for a theistic explanation — cannot be accomplished simultaneously.

    The supporting argument commits a pragmatic fallacy by confusing the rhetorical order of persuasion with the logical structure of abductive justification.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Abductive inference requires evaluating hypothesis quality by logical criteria like explanatory power, not by persuasive rhetorical effectiveness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Confusing what convinces an audience with what justifies a belief epistemically undermines rational evaluation of evidence and reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pragmatic fallacies occur precisely when persuasive success substitutes for logical validity in justificatory contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Abductive reasoning always involves rhetorical elements; the distinction between 'logical structure' and 'persuasive order' is artificial.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Effective communication of inference steps may require psychological ordering that differs from formal logical order without committing a fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The charge assumes a fallacy occurred without examining whether the argument actually conflates explanation with justification.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Abductive inference requires evaluating hypothesis quality by logical criteria l...Abductive reasoning always involves rhetorical elements; the distinction between...Confusing what convinces an audience with what justifies a belief epistemically ...Effective communication of inference steps may require psychological ordering th...
    +3 moreShow less
    Pragmatic fallacies occur precisely when persuasive success substitutes for logi...The charge assumes a fallacy occurred without examining whether the argument act...The two components of a moral argument — defending moral realism and arguing for...

    Details

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