Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
As for the semantics, what you have done is to argue that I am asking for 'conclusions' rather than 'assumptions' in the premises as if that somehow invalidates that for which I am asking. I have quite clearly explained what is required for justification several times: an argument supported by demonstrable premises. I do not want premises based on conjecture. Until that can be provided, the argument can be reasonably rejected as unsupported.
I'm pretty much of the same view as you, however I don't think Aaron W is making a trivial point (although personally I think it doesnt result in an impasse).
Could you give an example of something you consider to be well justified? An argument you consider to be satisfactorily establishing a conclusion?
I think such an exercise is useful because I think ultimately you
are forced to begin from some premises which are not demonstrable (since anything you demonstrate relies on other more primitive assumptions). Ultimately I think you can reach a level that everyone really does agree on - however by then the scope of your arguments may be somewhat limited to vacuous statements, I'm not sure.