Arguing from the Conclusion

In teaching and in many blogs, that I have read recently, a substantial number of scholars seem to be ‘arguing to the conclusion.’ I suppose everyone does it, but there are times when doing so confuses arguments or your understanding of concepts.

I remember some time in my second year of University, discussion of anti-realism/nominalism was flippantly engaged in without ever giving any form of introduction. Surely concepts at this basic level of epistomology ought to be tackled as fundamentals of the discipline rather than assumed in teaching.

I noticed a Fundamentalist magazine editor commit the same ‘argument from conclusion’ in an article criticising Driscol, though I do not have the link on me.