I am tremendously grateful to my friend Micah over on Youtube for hosting me on his channel. We discussed the realism/antirealism debate in the philosophy of science, and it was no doubt a stimulating discussion. I hope it serves you in your pursuit of truth!
The Principle of Relevant Propositions states that unless the truth value (be it true or false) of some fact or proposition logically entails or negates the truth value of any facts or proposition(s) in an argument, or negates any logical operators (negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, biconditional, etc.) in or among the premises of the argument, or anything necessary for the truth or falsity of such premises, the fact is not relevant to the argument.
I will continually update this evaluating arguments series with examples of ways one can evaluate, analyze, and critique philosophical arguments. One particularly forceful way to critique an argument is found in a passage from philosopher Edward Feser’s The Philosophy of Mind.
In this Evaluating Arguments series, I have presented a wide variety of ways to critically assess arguments in hopes of equipping you in the art of critical thinking. The list I have gone through is certainly not all-encompassing, however I can guarantee they will provide a profoundly useful basis upon which to build your critical thinking abilities.
Statistical and empirical arguments are crucial to the formulation of justified beliefs. As a result, knowing how to evaluate such arguments is of paramount significance. So, today I will explore yet another way to address and evaluate an argument.