Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Reasonable argument"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (catg: policy -> Issuepedia/policies) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[category:help]][[category:Issuepedia/policies]][[category:working definitions]]A [[Issuepedia:reasonable argument|reasonable argument]] is (tentatively defined as) an argument which hasn't been shown to be [[logical fallacy|fallacious]] or based on erroneous premises. The conclusion of such an argument is considered a [[Issuepedia:reasonably sound opinion|reasonably sound opinion]] and may be written as if factual, following the policy of [[Issuepedia:Reinforcement by Contradiction|Reinforcement by Contradiction]]. | |
| + | ==Note== | ||
| + | ''This was going to be a redirect to [[Issuepedia:Reasonably sound opinion]], but then I realized it was more of a separate concept. Or maybe it isn't. Any opinions on this? --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)'' | ||
Latest revision as of 12:59, 8 October 2009
A reasonable argument is (tentatively defined as) an argument which hasn't been shown to be fallacious or based on erroneous premises. The conclusion of such an argument is considered a reasonably sound opinion and may be written as if factual, following the policy of Reinforcement by Contradiction.
Note
This was going to be a redirect to Issuepedia:Reasonably sound opinion, but then I realized it was more of a separate concept. Or maybe it isn't. Any opinions on this? --Woozle 14:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)