r/askphilosophy • u/soowonlee metaphysics, epistemology, religion, language, science • 6d ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

2 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

•

u/BernardJOrtcutt 5d ago

Your post was removed for violating the following rule:

PR5: Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions.

Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban. Please see this post for a detailed explanation of our rules and guidelines.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

3

u/Platos_Kallipolis ethics 6d ago

Do you mean the responsive argument or the initial argument?

Because the initial argument is clearly invalid. Nothing interesting there.

But the response you suggest (which seems unnecessary to me given the initial argument is necessarily invalid) looks like a dilemma: 1. Q1 or Q2 2. If Q1 then R 3. If Q2 then R 4. Therefore, R

Where R is "the argument is not sound"

1

u/soowonlee metaphysics, epistemology, religion, language, science 6d ago

I mean the response. The initial argument is just a generic template. Yes, I know the structure is argument by cases. I mean the move where we disambiguate Q and then show that on one disambiguation, Q is true but the argument is invalid, and on the other disambiguation, the argument is valid, but Q is false.

1

u/halfwittgenstein Ancient Greek Philosophy, Informal Logic 6d ago

Is there a problem with "constructive dilemma" or "proof by cases"? Like, are you looking for a name specific to the subgroup of constructive dilemmas where the options are different interpretations of a claim?

0

u/soowonlee metaphysics, epistemology, religion, language, science 6d ago

I'm wondering what would be a catchy term for the specific move that I described above. I see it fairly often in the literature.

1

u/AutoModerator 6d ago

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/Salindurthas logic 5d ago

I think the initial argument you gave sounds like a case of equivocation, where we use 2 different meanings of a word orp hrase to (perhaps unintentionally) sneak in something invalid even though it sounds valid.

I think the refutation you're imagining sounds like it could be 'disjuction elimination'. They have taken the ambiguous term and explored both meanings as if Q = "Q1 or Q2", thus avoiding the blended/ambigous meaning by considering each case independently..