Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori.) Foundationalism is the belief that a chain of justification begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief.
The invincible ignorance fallacy, [1] also known as argument by pigheadedness, [2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used ...
Such an argument often depends on an externalist account on which "justification" is understood in such a way that whether or not a belief is "justified" depends not just on the internal state of the believer, but also on how that internal state is related to the outside world. Externalist accounts typically are constructed such that Smith's ...
The core idea behind the epistemic approach is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. [9] [2] Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. [3]
Invincible ignorance (argument by pigheadedness) – where a person simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. [ 63 ] Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam ) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
Defeasibility is found in literatures that are concerned with argument and the process of argument, or heuristic reasoning. Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning , where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion ...
The jury rejected the defense justification arguments. The lesser included offense of manslaughter was also among instructions to the first jury.
Over the course of time, different arguments have gained and lost support as new evidence has become available and as studies have been completed. A primary focus has been on whether the bombing should be categorized as a war crime and/or as a crime against humanity. There is also the debate on the role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and ...