- Circular reasoning(the trap that occurs when trying to define counterfactuals)
- A logical mistake where you use the very thing you're trying to prove as part of your argument, like saying 'I'm trustworthy because I said I am'—this goes in circles and doesn't actually explain anything.
- Competent reconstruction(a thorough way of analyzing an argument to see its hidden parts)
- A careful, skillful rewording or restatement of an argument that accurately captures what the original argument was trying to say.
- Distinction collapses(the philosophical claim being made about Van Cleve's two categories)
- When two things that were thought to be different turn out to be the same thing, or no longer meaningfully different.
- Premise-circular reasoning(another type of circular reasoning Van Cleve distinguished)
- A type of faulty argument where you assume one of the facts you're trying to prove as a starting point in your argument.
- Reliability claim(the hidden assumption being discussed in the statement)
- A statement asserting that a particular method or source of information is trustworthy and produces accurate results.
- Rule-circular reasoning(one type of circular reasoning Van Cleve distinguished)
- A type of faulty argument where you assume the very rule or principle you're trying to prove in order to justify using that rule.
- Van Cleve(named philosopher whose work is being discussed)
- James Van Cleve is a contemporary philosopher who has written about how we know things are true and what makes reasoning valid.
- suppressed premise(Used by moral skeptics to expose hidden normative commitments in naturalist arguments)
- An unstated premise that a deductive argument implicitly relies upon in order for the inference to be valid