more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Putting forward a valid argument isn't necessarily going to succeed in getting someone to see things your way, because if they don't accept the conclusion, they ask which premises they should reject, or whether an illegitimate assumption is being made.
Gist of Idea
Valid arguments can be rejected by challenging the premises or presuppositions
Source
Michael Martin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.136)
Book Ref
Baggini,J/Stangroom,J: 'New British Philosophy' [Routledge 2002], p.136
A Reaction
Valid arguments are still vital. It is just that good philosophers realise the problem noted here, and spend huge stretches of discussion on establishing acceptance of premises, and showing that there are no dodgy presuppositions.
| 3993 | Arguments are nearly always open to challenge, but they help to explain a position rather than force people to believe [Lewis] |
| 20220 | Objection by counterexample is weak, because it only reveals inaccuracies in one theory [Zagzebski] |
| 6856 | Valid arguments can be rejected by challenging the premises or presuppositions [Martin,M] |
| 19215 | Arguers often turn the opponent's modus ponens into their own modus tollens [Merricks] |
| 19504 | My modus ponens might be your modus tollens [Pritchard,D] |
| 23769 | Promoting an ontology by its implied good metaphysic is an 'argument-by-display' [Williams,NE] |
| 19115 | You can 'rebut' an argument's conclusion, or 'undercut' its premises [Antonelli] |
| 18405 | A 'teepee' argument has several mutually supporting planks to it [Cappelen/Dever] |
| 19023 | Slippery slope arguments are challenges to show where a non-arbitrary boundary lies [Vetter] |