#STRask Can Two Logical People Come to Conflicting Conclusions Without Committing a Fallacy?
Jan 8, 2026
Can two logical minds truly disagree without falling into fallacies? The discussion dives into how valid arguments can still lead to different conclusions, revealing the role of premises. Greg shares his personal approach to handling criticism as a public figure, emphasizing the importance of humility and emotional discipline. Tips for assessing and responding to online backlash highlight the necessity of clarity and grace. Finally, they explore how foundational beliefs shape our reasoning and the value of letting go of a perfect facade.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Logic Requires True Premises
- If a logically valid argument has true premises, the conclusion follows necessarily and conflicting conclusions indicate a mistake.
- Disagreement can persist when parties dispute the truth of premises or use ambiguous terms (equivocation).
Equivocation Masks Bad Arguments
- Equivocation hides errors by shifting meanings of key terms within an argument.
- Clarifying terms often exposes why a slogan or claim is flawed.
Validity Doesn't Guarantee Consensus
- A valid form (e.g., modus tollens) can still fail if a premise is false or debatable.
- Rational people may reasonably disagree over which premises are true.
