tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2995503895005423707..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A priori arguments and materialismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29801927771756895562013-10-31T10:00:52.598-07:002013-10-31T10:00:52.598-07:00"It might be helpful to see some examples of ..."<i>It might be helpful to see some examples of what Parsons is talking about.</i>"<br /><br />But you don't really expect to, now do you?<br /><br />Look at it this way: <i>Parsons</i> is attempting an <i>a priori</i> "argument" against <i>a priori</i> arguments ... he just needs his readers to not notice the nature of what he's trying to pull off.IlĂonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11784867629750599272013-10-30T19:42:34.145-07:002013-10-30T19:42:34.145-07:00Parsons' first critical response is just the g...Parsons' first critical response is just the <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html" rel="nofollow">genetic fallacy</a>. That other <i>a priori</i> arguments have faired poorly against scientific evidence isn't relevant to the Goetz and Taliafero's argument. Besides which, Parsons is trying to stack the deck; he <i>claims</i> that the evidence is in his favor, but he doesn't furnish it, and even if he did, his case would necessarily omit the evidence to the contrary, hence the charge of stacking the deck. <br /><br />I don't know, I'm really just doing some mental calisthenics. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.com