I mentioned it specifically because it often does reduce my confidence in my position to encounter such a case—or, at least it compels me to go through the process of re-evaluating my position to look for weaknesses.
I think we sometimes operate under the assumption that people who arrive at the same conclusion use the same (or very similar) reasoning. But this is not always the case.
If you encounter someone who arrives at your conclusion using different premises, then (1) his premises are faulty, (2) yours are faulty, (3) you’ve each found unique solid arguments or (4) you’ve each been sufficiently misguided, each constructed faulty premises, and both need an update.
Sure. I didn’t mention that one because it isn’t likely to reduce my confidence in a position.
I mentioned it specifically because it often does reduce my confidence in my position to encounter such a case—or, at least it compels me to go through the process of re-evaluating my position to look for weaknesses.
I think we sometimes operate under the assumption that people who arrive at the same conclusion use the same (or very similar) reasoning. But this is not always the case.
If you encounter someone who arrives at your conclusion using different premises, then (1) his premises are faulty, (2) yours are faulty, (3) you’ve each found unique solid arguments or (4) you’ve each been sufficiently misguided, each constructed faulty premises, and both need an update.