On 5 February 2014 07:45, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/4/2014 9:57 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on >> something other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's >> argument as valid but regard it as a reductio against saying "yes" to the >> doctor. I have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a >> problem with all theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory. > > > But surely a reductio entails accepting an argument in principle and > then showing that it leads to a contradiction in its own terms? > > No a reductio ad absurdum is showing that the premises lead to conclusions > that are absurd, i.e. that it is more likely the premises are false than > that the conclusion is true. This is somewhat a matter of judgement as to > what counts as absurd. A contradiction though is necessarily fatal. > > Depends what you mean by "accepting an argument in principle". Obviously you "accept" the premises in order to derive the contradiction.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
