Sophistry: “n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.”
In a comment earlier today Kantian Naturalist stated: “The idea that the capacity to engage in reasoned discourse depends upon a commitment to ‘the rules of right reason’ is silly (at best). For one thing, there are no such rules.”
KN, I am calling you out on your sophistry. I challenge you to answer the following three simple true/false questions.
For any proposition A:
1: A=A. True or False.
2: “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. True or False.
3: “A is B” and “A is not B” are jointly exhaustive. True or False.
KN knows as well as anyone that the three classic laws of thought, i.e., the rules of right reason, are logical axioms that cannot be denied on pain of self-referential incoherence. In other words, in order to deny one of the three laws, one must first affirm it. What will he do now?
Prediction: KN will either ignore this challenge or dig deeper into the hole of sophistry he has dug for himself.