Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- what_s_this_all_about [2025/12/15 10:43]
216.73.216.11 old revision restored (2025/05/22 02:30)
+++ what_s_this_all_about [2025/12/18 10:26] (current)
57.141.0.50 old revision restored (2025/06/20 03:59)
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Sound interesting? You can join in the discussion by [[learning how to format arguments properly]] and adding arguments to the discussions--your own or popular ones of history.
-If you're weeping at the awful state of this website, you might be a web developer. Want to help make this better? Please get in contact! <loyalcj@outlook.com>
+If you're weeping at the awful state of this website, you might be a web developer. Want to help make this better? Please get in contact! __loyalcj at outlook dot com__
 If you're a philosopher, you might notice a couple limitations of this strategy: can the same arguments, reduced to be a simple as possible, be represented in multiple different types of syllogistic arguments? When linking similar arguments, who gets to decide when one argument is the exact same as another? Is this favoring a coherentist approach to knowledge by its very design? While I (Loyal) don't find problems with any of these, I would be happy to talk with you about any of them. It remains to be demonstrated, however, whether arguments can have multiple valid structures or if the very nature of a structure biases people toward a conclusion.