Personaltine (paradigm): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Page creation) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Answer == | == Answer == | ||
# If an argument is made by [[user:Tine Bizjak|Tine Bizjak]] or [[user:Tamara Gajst|Tamara Gajst]], it is considered | # If an argument is made by [[user:Tine Bizjak|Tine Bizjak]] or [[user:Tamara Gajst|Tamara Gajst]], it is considered untrue. | ||
# If an argument is attacked by a valid argument, it is considered invalid. | # If an argument is attacked by a valid argument, it is considered invalid. | ||
== Rationale == | == Rationale == | ||
The paradigm is based on the belief that everything Bizjak and Gajst say is | The paradigm is based on the belief that everything Bizjak and Gajst say is untrue. It depicts a hypothetical situation, created as an exemplary paradigm for similar, personal worldviews. | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
Revision as of 10:59, 29 July 2018
| Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
|
| Upload data
|
The personaltine paradigm is a set of rules to make inferences about validity of arguments. It is used to produce shared understanding and describe differences in thinking.
Question
What inference rules are used when the personaltine paradigm is used?
Answer
- If an argument is made by Tine Bizjak or Tamara Gajst, it is considered untrue.
- If an argument is attacked by a valid argument, it is considered invalid.
Rationale
The paradigm is based on the belief that everything Bizjak and Gajst say is untrue. It depicts a hypothetical situation, created as an exemplary paradigm for similar, personal worldviews.