2 ms·
The fact that there might be good arguments for a proposition doesn't mean I'm responsible for looking for them. There's an abstract sense in which I should be
by dllthomas 10y ago
The fact that there might be good arguments for a proposition doesn't mean I'm responsible for looking for them. There's an abstract sense in which I should be seeking all good arguments for everything, but the world is big and my resources limited and even if all I'm doing is rationally seeking truth I need to prioritize. And in a rhetorical context, there are certainly burden-of-proof considerations.
My point was simply that a flawed argument for "X" should not lead me to think "not X" is more likely. Otherwise, I can get you to think any "Y" by presenting flawed arguments that "not Y" - I have an infinite supply of them regardless of whether "Y" or "not Y" in fact.
- conistonwater 10y agoOkay, I think I just misunderstood you at first.
- dllthomas 10y agoYeah, there is separately the principle of charity, where if I understand an argument to be flawed, I should look for similar correct arguments and check if that's what the other party meant. In some contexts (here, for instance) that's appropriate and even important. But it's not quite the same notion.