(March 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm referring more towards what must be done after the argument appears to be both valid and sound. Some connection must still be drawn, must it not?
(LATE EDIT) What I'm trying to express here, is that whether or not an argument is internally consistent is all well and good. It's more important to me, personally, that the argument be consistent with more than just itself.
Right -
I meant to comment on this point but it slipped my mind.
If a philosophy is internally consistent and if even a single part of it is incompatible with reality, then it is - as a whole - incompatible with reality and therefore should be discarded. Such a philosophy would not be consistently practicable and a person would only be able to live according to it as long as he picks and chooses from its parts.
So, when confronted with any philosophy that seems logical on the face of it, one has one of the two courses - either find an example of internal inconsistency or show its incompatibility with reality - and the philosophy would stand refuted.
This task is much simpler than the one upon the person proposing the philosophy. He has to make sure that there is not a single point of inconsistency or incompatibility. In a discussion, I find it much easier to provide the refutation than discussing the validity of each and every point.
