Retortion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(→Links) |
||
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
- Moleski: