Ethical foundations of the left

[Ken Hanly]

Well what it shows is that Habermas apparently has not studied logical
fallacies such as poisoning the wells. Any evidence against his theory is
rejected in advance since according to his theory it would exemplify the
very conditions his theory proclaims as necessary. In asserting this,
Habermas not only is poisoning the wells but is also guiilty of begging the
question, assuming what is to be proved.  Even if there were such a theory
then since nothing could count against it, it would seem to empty of any
informative content and consistent with any state of affairs. It would have
the info content of statements such as it is raining or it is not raining.

Cheers, Ken Hanly


> it is a logically airtight argument since if you argue against it, then
you
> are engaged in a performative contradiction. you prove his argument as you
> reject it by-voila!--arguing.
>