Fallacy over relativism, logic itself leaves room for it, there is no necessary fighting in defense of a relativist ought, it exists freely in the gap as description
An “ought” existing freely in a logical gap as a descriptive statement? Sounds like magic. You need to argue for it, or it is “freely” ignored.
- cleverbeast said: Two flaws I observe in your reasoning as of late, and I can expand later, are: treating ‘relativism’ nominally like one would argue with a corpse, and denoting all nonscientific means of knowing as culpable pseudoscience when some claims are not appealing to that form of…
- ludimagister posted this