3 ms·

If I would talk about specifics, you could supplement your sentence "what evidence do you have" with "regarding X" but since I don't talk about specifics, I don

• Retric 7y ago
  If something is generally true then their must exist many specific cases of it being true. Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument.
  • account73466 7y ago
    >> Because if they can’t that directly invalidates their argument. No, it does not since this is not how logic and science work. You just stay with a claim that is missing a support but it does not mean that the claim is false. >> Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example. Alright. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy and let me know what is the main thing you are uncomfortable with (if any). If there is a match, then I will provide another example.
    • Retric 7y ago
      You’re misinterpreting what I said. Invalidating an argument does not mean the conclusion is always false. Otherwise you could prove any theorem A by finding a single contradiction invalidating a poof of !A. PS: Sorry, I can’t help myself... 1 + 1 = 5 therefore P != NP. Wait 1 + 1 = 2 therefore P = NP. Sadly that’s not going to fly.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]