The Analytic Approach to Refuting Someone Else’s Theory
“Sally’s theory claims that p. But if you look at the following minor and/or fanciful details (see Thought Experiments 1, 2, and 7) and really enjoy straining at gnats, you will come to the conclusion that Sally’s theory can’t be completely right. Therefore, it is completely wrong.”
The Continental Approach to Refuting Someone Else’s Theory
“Sally’s theory claims that p. But that is a very P-ist thing to say and those of us who have moved beyond (morally-defective) P-ism now prefer Q-ism instead. Therefore, Sally really should have said that q — and since she didn’t, she’s (probably, though I’m not comfortable coming right out and saying it) a bad person.”
The Historical Approach to Refuting Someone Else’s Theory
“Sally says that Aristotle says that p. But I disagree with p and think it makes Aristotle look bad to say he believed that p. Therefore, the Principle of Charity (as I once heard an historically-ignorant ‘Analytic’ call it) demands that we find a different reading of the text(s) in question — one which shows that Aristotle did not in fact believe that p.”
