Posted by pontormo on August 16, 2014, at 12:34:55
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-844756, posted by Lamdage22 on August 15, 2014, at 3:31:14
I do think that Lou's arguments always rest on this formulation:
"A subset of readers could think ..."
This is an interesting way of formulating an argument, which would, I think, allow for many counter-factual propositions. That is, it's possibly not counterfactual that some group of people COULD think something..." -- what's counterfactual is that any group of people DO think it; or that any group of people would be LIKELY or RATIONAL to think it.
For there are always small groups of people who are prone to think quite odd and irrational, or unsubstantiated and very improbable things-- and Lou's formulation -- if we respond to it as written--would force us to agree that many quite strange things, again, COULD be thought-- by this-- posited, but quite possiby non-existent, "subset" of people.
But have we therefore agreed that whatever the subset could think is based in fact? or even well-reasoned? no-- not at all.
So, in a sense, Lou wins most arguments before they even get off the ground, because he creates such a low threshold for the opposition to have to agree with what he claims.
poster:pontormo
thread:1068612
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20140815/msgs/1069897.html