25 ms·

Neither of those statements are claims that need to be explained or justified. They are proposed lines of reasoning that themseves explain and justify other ar

Neither of those statements are claims that need to be explained or justified. They are proposed lines of reasoning that themseves explain and justify other arguments. You might still challenge them, but the challenge would just be your own counter statement. For instance, are you claiming that: If people aren't free to choose, they can still change just fine?

lapcat 4y ago
> Neither of those statements are claims that need to be explained or justified. Heh, this claim itself needs to be explained and justified. > They are proposed lines of reasoning that themseves explain and justify other arguments. I would call them unexamined assumptions. > You might still challenge them, but the challenge would just be your own counter statement. The burden of proof is on the author to support the conclusions of the article and convince the readers of those conclusions. I remain completely unconvinced. > For instance, are you claiming that: If people aren't free to choose, they can still change just fine? I am claiming that people obviously do change, as an empirical matter. This is not magically an argument for metaphysical free will. It would be such a trivial argument. If anything, perhaps people have no freedom to not change. After all, we're changing every moment, if only by aging. I wish I could avoid aging! You could liken the human body to the Ship of Theseus, constantly adding new parts and removing old parts, until hardly anything is the same years later. Moreover, we're constantly being affected by external stimuli. Or to put it in another way, we learn! How could we not change in reaction to that?
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Neither of those statements were statements. They were pure algebra with placeholder suppositions not declared values. There is nothing in them to contest except the definitions of the terms. Unless you are claiming they used the word "if" wrong or something there is nothing to prove or disprove. If you want to claim the algebra is wrong, the "if this then that" is broken, then say what you think is wrong with it.

lapcat 4y ago

> Neither of those statements are claims that need to be explained or justified. Heh, this claim itself needs to be explained and justified. > They are proposed lines of reasoning that themseves explain and justify other arguments. I would call them unexamined assumptions. > You might still challenge them, but the challenge would just be your own counter statement. The burden of proof is on the author to support the conclusions of the article and convince the readers of those conclusions. I remain completely unconvinced. > For instance, are you claiming that: If people aren't free to choose, they can still change just fine? I am claiming that people obviously do change, as an empirical matter. This is not magically an argument for metaphysical free will. It would be such a trivial argument. If anything, perhaps people have no freedom to not change. After all, we're changing every moment, if only by aging. I wish I could avoid aging! You could liken the human body to the Ship of Theseus, constantly adding new parts and removing old parts, until hardly anything is the same years later. Moreover, we're constantly being affected by external stimuli. Or to put it in another way, we learn! How could we not change in reaction to that?

Brian_K_White 4y ago
Neither of those statements were statements. They were pure algebra with placeholder suppositions not declared values. There is nothing in them to contest except the definitions of the terms. Unless you are claiming they used the word "if" wrong or something there is nothing to prove or disprove. If you want to claim the algebra is wrong, the "if this then that" is broken, then say what you think is wrong with it.