Actually, seems to me it’s more like the idea of a Fully General Counterargument. But
Your counterargument should distinguish good arguments from bad arguments, in that it specifies criteria that systematically apply to a class of bad arguments but not to good arguments. And those criteria should be matched up with details of the allegedly bad argument.
hasn’t been stated so plainly before (AFAIK), and is a good point – a definition of what isn’t Fully General.
I don’t think it’s that helpful. Most general arguments do apply everywhere. It’s just that they apply weakly, quantitatively, while humans want sharp qualitative answers.
Actually, seems to me it’s more like the idea of a Fully General Counterargument. But
hasn’t been stated so plainly before (AFAIK), and is a good point – a definition of what isn’t Fully General.
I don’t think it’s that helpful. Most general arguments do apply everywhere. It’s just that they apply weakly, quantitatively, while humans want sharp qualitative answers.
True, but if they aren’t Fully General, there are large differences in the degree to which they apply – rephrased quantitatively, the point stands.