From the article:
“It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach.We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to disprove the assertion of whoever claimed it was pregnant, you will have to do 2 things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if u can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes… Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant.”
Hmm, let’s see what that breaks down to: if someone makes a claim about something, it must be accepted until it can be disproven.
I know I’m not the only one here who will find that reasoning ‘problematic’, to say the least.
Also, the red flags start with this: “It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction.” Translation: “if you find any holes in our conclusion, you’re insane”. No one offering a truly compelling argument needs to preface what they’re about to say with such a statement.