Saw this (WP:"What the Tortoise said to Achilles") on the internet.
A summary is as follows. The common argument is:
A: If p then q B: p C: Therefore q.
This raises the following question: what if one were to object to this, i.e concede that A and B are true but object to C.
My question is this: could this objection be valid for use? How would you refute this objection?
So far I have been thinking that the only way you can refute it is by claiming that the person arguing it is ignorant.
UPDATE: A more detailed summary:
For most arguments in science, one uses the 'modus ponens' argument. Consider the following A: If it is night time, it will be dark. B: It is night time C: Therefore it is dark.
What if someone were to concede A and B, but object to C? In this case, you might consider adding the following argument.
A: If it is night time, it will be dark. B: It is night time C: Therefore it is dark. D: If A and B are true, C must be true.
Once again, what if someone accepts the first 3 arguments but objects to D.
Then, you might be tempted to add argument E.. and so on.