On Kisceral Argumentation

What happened in the debate over the intuitive nature of, for example, fifth postulate? They did not think they were providing reasons for its acceptance as an axiom, they were not trying to argue that the axiom was intuitive – that would be viciously self-defeating (if it needs to be argued for, then it is not intuitive). But if not that, what was the debate about? As far as I understand Michael Gilbert, according to him, it was primarily about whether to accept the axiom, and not about whether it was intuitive or not; just as everyday logical arguments are primarily about whether to accept a conclusion and not whether it is true or not. Thus, just as a good (valid?) logical argument is one where the (truth of) the conclusion is properly backed on (the truth of) the premises, in a good (valid?) so-called kisceral argument the intuitive nature of the conclusion is properly backed on the premises, if we want to talk like that. Yet, the rules of logical argumentation be different from the rules of kisceral argumentation, because truth is different from intuitiveness. For starters, a good visceral argument cannot be an intuition-preserving argument in the sense that a good logical argument is a good truth-preserving argument because if a conclusion’s acceptance follows from its premises then it is no longer intuitive! Instead, argues Gilbert, a good kisceral argument must work backwards from the consequences of the putatively intuitive conclusion.

In order to make sense of this, Michael Gilbert appeals to the notion of argumentative frameworks. Argumentation always happens within a proper framework. These frameworks determine the set of commitments the arguer makes: commitments to accept certain premises, modes of arguing, sources of evidence, etc. and not others, to deem certain claims as fundamental (and intuitive) and others as controversial (and thus worth discussing), etc. Thus, there is a place for subjectivity that is not a free-for-all relativism. Every argument, every premise, and therefore also every conclusion’s acceptability depends on the framework it occurs in, yet this dependance is clearer in the case of kisceral argumentation. The goal of kisceral argumentation is to evaluate a possible argumentative framework before fully committing to it. If we want to defend the intuitiveness of a claim, thus, what we ought to do is to show a framework within which it is intuitive and then show its attractiveness as a framework.