-4 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
If one’s demands for reasons are nothing more than a “dialectical norm,” and the norm itself lacks reasons of its own (as its pure convention) then such a norm would be arbitrary and ungrounded. The skeptics basis of attack would be unjustified since it relies on nothing more than convention.
Comment by superninja109 at 02/02/2025 at 17:51 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Wow. So you’re going to just ignore the two strongest criticisms? Please point me to the passages in which you address the sufficiency of the weaker “some” version and the vacuity of the PSR. They are not in the article, as you claim. Did you think I had written all this (including quotes from the article!) without reading it?
Also, with regard to dialectical norms, being a norm doesn’t entail being arbitrary or purely conventional. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that this dialectical norm to give reasons is purely arbitrary.
Your claim was that, by giving a reason, the skeptic implicitly accepts the PSR. This move relies on the PSR being the only explanation for reason-giving behavior. But I’ve just given you another explanation: it’s a dialectical norm. This norm may be arbitrary or unjustified, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the skeptic’s implicit acceptance (she need not consciously accept it- it may just be habit/convention) of the dialectical norm is sufficient to explain her reason-giving, without invoking the PSR.