If you had no ability to recognize that an argument you had made was flawed, then you a) wouldn't be "rational", b) would be perfectly "rational", and never make flawed arguments.
Not being perfectly rational may be a consequence of being human.
Recognizing that fact (in regards to both others, and ourselves) is a result of having "rationality".
I'd say no - it's not clear what it means for something which can't be assigned a truth value to be true. If it can't be assigned a truth value, then isn't it "nonsense"?
But the reverse might be so: that which "cannot be assigned a truth value" can be assigned a value of "false", as "nonsense" is not "true". And that which is not true, is false.
This is an ill-posed question. When you refer to infinity ("an infinite number of causes or effects"), you are implying accountability, and that's not a physical fact, but a fact related with our human subjectivity.
If you touch a rock pebble with your finger, the pebble moves. But the pebble is not moving due to a single physical action (for example, one ...
Your textbox opens with what was going to be the first line of my answer!
Take Russell's barber paradox about the town in which the barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
Plainly this is a proposition followed by an interrogative. It is not a ...