The template goes roughly like this:
- Person A wants to argue that X is the reason for phenomenon P
- A assumes Y which is basically a proxy for X
- A then proceeds to explain how Y implies X and how that lines up with P and thus our current understanding of the world, sidestepping pretty much all of the hard/interesting bits of the discussion.
This is a textbook of poor axiomatic thinking. 2/x
By assuming Y, you've just kicked the can down the road and conveniently sidestepped the whole debate. How did you arrive at Y? What evidence supports it? Sure this kind of reasoning can still be useful in many ways, especially mathematically, but for it to apply you still have to argue that Y holds, which in a lot of cases, easily defeats the argument. 3/x
I have yet to find a piece of writing where Searle explains why biological entities have intentionality but machines don't. It's easy to prove something when you get to assume all the necessary conditions. I guess this then turns into an argument about which axioms are reasonable assume, which is, in a way, the whole point of the game. 6/x
My point is not that "everybody is doing it wrong here's how to fix it" there will never be a one size fits all rule for choosing axioms. But it is a rhetorical slight of hand I've seen multiple times now and I think people should be weary of that. something being "self evident" without having a robust backing should be a red flag when someone is making an argument. end
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.