People are already enduring the truth(1), therefore, they can stand what is true(2)?
Your examples are mostly cases where 1 doesn’t exactly hold, so 2 not following in those scenarios doesn’t seem like an invalidation. (If someone argues “If A is true then B is true.” and you argue that ‘there are cases where A isn’t true that B isn’t true’ that doesn’t really address the argument.)
The Litany of Gendlin is conjecture (1) supported by fallacy (2), with no evidence for it(3), and a great many plausible disproofs(4).
It is true that I can think of times that it is better to face the truth, hard though that might be. But that only proves that some knowledge is better than some ignorance, not that all facts are better to know than not.
(1) A conjecture is “an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information”. On what basis is this a conclusion based on information? (In context if you said it was an incorrect statement that would make sense. Claims about the process by which it was generated require evidence, and are beside the point, which is whether it is correct or incorrect.)
(2) What fallacy?
(3) You have already stated there is evidence—narrow enough it does not fit the conclusion in full, but that is different from “no evidence for”. (Unless you think there’s no evidence for gravity.)
(4) Most of your “disproofs” are the same. Aside from its logic, you are arguing as if some divine authority might force the truth upon everyone if we accept this Litany, or some diabolical force might do so only in the worst possible cases. The Litany does not say that seeking out all knowledge should be your first priority—you would die of starvation before proving the primality (or compositeness) of every positive integer.
Your examples are mostly cases where 1 doesn’t exactly hold, so 2 not following in those scenarios doesn’t seem like an invalidation. (If someone argues “If A is true then B is true.” and you argue that ‘there are cases where A isn’t true that B isn’t true’ that doesn’t really address the argument.)
(1) A conjecture is “an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information”. On what basis is this a conclusion based on information? (In context if you said it was an incorrect statement that would make sense. Claims about the process by which it was generated require evidence, and are beside the point, which is whether it is correct or incorrect.)
(2) What fallacy?
(3) You have already stated there is evidence—narrow enough it does not fit the conclusion in full, but that is different from “no evidence for”. (Unless you think there’s no evidence for gravity.)
(4) Most of your “disproofs” are the same. Aside from its logic, you are arguing as if some divine authority might force the truth upon everyone if we accept this Litany, or some diabolical force might do so only in the worst possible cases. The Litany does not say that seeking out all knowledge should be your first priority—you would die of starvation before proving the primality (or compositeness) of every positive integer.