« The Real Goldfinger | Main | Pixels and Pictorialism: short article on philosophy of photography »

September 15, 2006


Richard Mascall

If we are seeking the most efficient process of establishing a valid argument, might it not be better to adopt a totally negative approach rather than a charitable one ? If Proposer P makes a sloppy or incomplete argument, perhaps it would be faster for Responder R to simply identify the weak point and state it. Proposer P can then concentrate on the specific fallacy or omission and restate his argument. If Responder R adopts a charitable approach, might there not be a danger he will rephrase the proposal in such a way that actually changes the point, rather than simply eliminating an error or making good something that was missing ?

In other words, should the responsibility for making an argument reside totally with a Proposer and the responsibility of a Responder be totally to search for weaknesses ? In the everyday world, is this not how our political and legal systems work (for better or worse) ?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Get Virtual Philosopher by email...

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

My Podcasts

My Art and Photography Weblog

Philosophy: The Classics

Philosophy Bites

Ethics Bites