Law of the Ad Hoc Validity

The principle that arguments, explanations, or solutions constructed for a specific purpose, without broader application, can be valid within that specific context even if they fail elsewhere. The law acknowledges that ad hoc reasoning—devised for the occasion, not generalizable—has its place. In emergency response, ad hoc solutions save lives; in scientific discovery, ad hoc hypotheses guide research; in everyday life, ad hoc explanations get us through the day. The problem arises when ad hoc validity is mistaken for general validity—when the explanation that works for this one case is treated as a universal law. The law of the ad hoc validity reminds us that context matters, and that validity is not binary but situational.

Example: "His excuse for being late—traffic, then a train, then a stray dog—was ad hoc, invented for the occasion. But it was valid ad hoc: it explained this specific lateness to this specific boss on this specific day. The law of the ad hoc validity said: it works for this case; don't try to generalize it. His boss accepted it, which was all that mattered."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Valid Ad Hoc

The principle that ad hoc constructions—explanations, arguments, solutions devised for a specific purpose—can be genuinely valid within their limited domain. The law is a defense of pragmatism against purism: not everything needs to be universal to be useful. A theory that explains one phenomenon, even if it fails elsewhere, is valid for that phenomenon. A solution that works once, even if not replicable, is valid for that once. The law of the valid ad hoc reminds us that validity is not all-or-nothing; it comes in degrees and contexts. The valid ad hoc is the workhorse of practical life, even if it doesn't make it into textbooks.

Example: "She jury-rigged a fix for her broken printer using tape and a paperclip. It worked exactly once, for exactly one document, then fell apart. The law of the valid ad hoc said: it was valid for that document, at that moment. It wasn't engineering; it was survival. Sometimes survival is enough."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Fallacy Validity

The principle that under specific conditions, what appears to be a fallacy can actually be valid reasoning. The law acknowledges that context matters: an argument that commits a fallacy in one setting may be perfectly reasonable in another. Ad hominem, attacking the person, is fallacious in formal debate but valid when assessing credibility (you wouldn't trust a tobacco company's research on smoking). Appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority is irrelevant but valid when expertise is genuine. Slippery slope is fallacious when speculative but valid when causal chains are real. The law of the fallacy validity reminds us that fallacy labels are not absolute; they're tools, not weapons. What matters is not whether an argument fits a fallacy pattern but whether it's reasonable in context.

Example: "He accused her of ad hominem for mentioning the speaker's industry funding. She invoked the law of the fallacy validity: attacking the person is valid when their credibility is relevant. The funding mattered; the ad hominem was justified. He called it a fallacy; she called it context. She was right."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Law of the Valid Fallacies

The principle that there exists a class of arguments that are technically fallacious by formal standards yet genuinely valid in practice—reasoning that works even though it breaks the rules. These "valid fallacies" include arguments that persuade reasonable people despite logical flaws, inferences that lead to true conclusions through invalid steps, and reasoning that succeeds where formal logic fails. The law of the valid fallacies acknowledges that human reasoning is richer than formal logic, and that sometimes the technically invalid is practically sound. It's the logic of "it shouldn't work, but it does," of the intuitive leaps that turn out right, of the arguments that convince because they're right even though they're wrong by the book.

Example: "Her argument was technically fallacious—circular reasoning, begging the question. But it was also true, and everyone knew it. The law of the valid fallacies said: sometimes the fallacy is valid. The circularity didn't make it false; it just made it formally invalid. Formal invalidity and practical truth can coexist."

by Dumu The Void February 17, 2026

Valid Post-Truth

The recognition that "post-truth" is not simply a descent into falsehood but a transformation of how truth functions—a shift from truth as correspondence to truth as performance, truth as identity, truth as weapon. Valid Post-Truth argues that the old regime of truth (objective, universal, authoritative) has eroded, and a new regime has emerged where truth claims are judged not by their correspondence to reality but by their effects, their alignment with identity, their viral potential. This is not the end of truth but its mutation—truth becomes something else, something we don't yet fully understand. Valid Post-Truth is the attempt to understand this mutation without simply lamenting it.

Example: "He'd spent years lamenting the death of truth, the rise of lies, the end of reason. Valid Post-Truth showed him a different picture: truth hadn't died; it had transformed. Now truth was what went viral, what felt right, what performed identity. He didn't have to like it, but he had to understand it. The old truth wasn't coming back; a new truth was here."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Theory of Valid Post-Truth

The systematic elaboration of valid post-truth as a framework for understanding contemporary epistemology. The Theory of Valid Post-Truth argues that we are witnessing not the death of truth but its mutation—a shift from truth-as-correspondence to truth-as-performance, truth-as-identity, truth-as-weapon. It traces the conditions that produced this shift: the collapse of trusted institutions, the rise of social media, the weaponization of information, the fragmentation of publics. It doesn't celebrate this shift or lament it; it seeks to understand it, to map its contours, to navigate its terrain. The Theory of Valid Post-Truth is the attempt to think clearly about a world where truth is no longer what it was.

Example: "He'd been searching for a way to understand the new information landscape—the lies that felt true, the facts that convinced no one. The Theory of Valid Post-Truth gave him language: truth had mutated, shifted from correspondence to performance. He stopped trying to fight the old war and started learning to navigate the new terrain."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026

Valid Postmodernism

The recognition that postmodernism, often dismissed as nihilistic or relativistic, contains valid insights about the nature of truth, power, and reality that are essential for navigating the contemporary world. Valid Postmodernism accepts the core postmodern critiques—that truth is constructed, that power shapes knowledge, that grand narratives are suspect—without collapsing into the conclusion that nothing is true or everything is permitted. It uses postmodern tools to clear away false certainties, expose hidden power, and open space for new possibilities, while retaining the ability to make judgments, take stands, and fight for what matters. Valid Postmodernism is postmodernism with a spine, critique with commitment, deconstruction with construction.

Example: "He'd dismissed postmodernism as nonsense, nihilism, the end of everything. Valid Postmodernism showed him otherwise: the tools of deconstruction could expose power, the critique of grand narratives could free him from dogma, the recognition that truth is constructed could make him humble. He didn't have to accept everything; he just had to question everything—including his own certainties."

by Abzugal February 21, 2026