Retortion: Difference between revisions

From Cor ad Cor
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:
** [http://www.anthonyflood.com/moleskiretortion.htm "Retortion: The Method and Metaphysics of Gaston Isaye."]
** [http://www.anthonyflood.com/moleskiretortion.htm "Retortion: The Method and Metaphysics of Gaston Isaye."]
** [http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-009-3551-8_13#page-1 "The Role of Retortion in the Cognitional Analyses of Lonergan and Polanyi."]
** [http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-009-3551-8_13#page-1 "The Role of Retortion in the Cognitional Analyses of Lonergan and Polanyi."]
** [[Proving negatives]].


* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_reference ''Wikipedia,'' "Self reference."]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_reference ''Wikipedia,'' "Self reference."]

Revision as of 17:38, 21 July 2017

Retortion is the act of identifying a self-referential contradiction in an opponent's position.

So, for example, if I were to write, "No one can type a coherent sentence in English," a thoughtful critic might retort: "But what you just wrote provides evidence against what you claim to be true."

Retortion is spelled "retorsion" in French. The idea of turning an opponent's self-referential contradictions into a reason for rejecting the position is common among Transcendental Thomists, who used various forms of this argument to demonstrate the instability of Kant's epistemology.

Links