[YESNO] What's wrong with arguments having an amount of strength? ("Check Your Understanding" question)

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

*Yes or No Philosophy*, part 17, "Check Your Understanding":

> What's wrong with arguments having an amount of strength?

There is no rational way to evaluate arguments as having non-binary amounts of strength, i.e., evaluations other than *decisive* or *worthless*. Believing that arguments can have non-binary amounts of strength leads to evading criticism, because it gives one an excuse to stop thinking about a criticism before one understands whether it is decisive or worthless.

[Elliot Temple]

On May 24, 2020, at 10:42 PM, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum <petrogradp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> *Yes or No Philosophy*, part 17, "Check Your Understanding":
>
>> What's wrong with arguments having an amount of strength?
>
> There is no rational way to evaluate arguments as having non-binary amounts of strength, i.e., evaluations other than *decisive* or *worthless*.

Why?

> Believing that arguments can have non-binary amounts of strength leads to evading criticism, because it gives one an excuse to stop thinking about a criticism before one understands whether it is decisive or worthless.

Elliot Temple
www.elliottemple.com

[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum]

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 4:18 PM Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

> You're assuming negative arguments are binary.

Outline: [You are] assuming [clause 1].

1. Verb: "are assuming" (present continuous tense)

2. Subject: "You"

3. Object: "[clause 1]"

4. Modifiers: N/A

Clause 1: Negative arguments are binary.

1. Verb (linking): "are"

2. Subject: "arguments"

3. Complement: "binary"

4. Modifiers:

- "negative" modifies "arguments". It answers the question: "What kind of arguments?"

Conclusions: You are assuming that negative arguments are binary.