Mister Scratch wrote:And which logical fallacy is this? Argumentum ad ignorantum?
That I don't find your typologies convincing or fundamentally explanatory does not entail that I'm appealing to ignorance. There's no logical fallacy in suggesting that I don't find
your analysis unconvincing.
Well, I categorically reject your logical fallacy. It should be pretty obvious that the taxonomy laid out in the OP is theoretical in nature. I cannot see how your simplification of everything offers up any better explanation.
Good. Then you're the recto to my verso.
(2) No, if your analysis is really true, then everyone everywhere who truly believes anything actually to be true should immediately stop defending their claims and/or arguing their claims for its truthfulness.
Why do you say that? The schematic is meant to deal specifically with LDS apologetics. You are the one who is wanting to broaden the scope of things. Why might that be?
No, not really. I'm referring very specifically to your quoted statement below. You stated:
Also, your suggestion overlooks a very basic question: if something is "true," why would it need any "defense"---particularly the kind of "defense" that exemplifies LDS apologetics?
You move
from generality to particularity, here. If your point is meant
only to apply to LDS apologetics (rather than
particularly to LDS apologetics), you should've made that clear. You suggested, rather, that your point was "very basic"; and, so, in terms of your quoted statement, I believe my response stands.
Best.
cks