If anyone who does think they have a coherent definition for UCMA that does not involve persuasiveness (subject to the above taboos) wants to chime in I'd love to hear it.
I'll give it a shot: an argument is universally compelling if no mind both a) has reasons to reject it, and b) has coherent beliefs. This is to say that a mind can only believe that the argument is false by believing a contradiction.
I'll give it a shot: an argument is universally compelling if no mind both a) has reasons to reject it, and b) has coherent beliefs. This is to say that a mind can only believe that the argument is false by believing a contradiction.
I think this may sound stronger than it actually is, for the same reasons that you can't convince an arbitrary mind who does not accept modus ponens that it is true.
More to the point, recall that one rationalist's modus tollens is another's modus ponens. This definition is defeated by any mind who possesses a strong prior t... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.