When countless objections are proposed

I have encountered another case which only partially fit:

an objection is raised to a principle with a particular case as an example,

another case is proposed to the decisive answer, and so on,

up to the declaration that, as there are so many possible cases, the principle can hardly hold all up.

In my opinion, the principle subsists until a proofed and true case actually contrasts it

by proposing a higher one.

The reply by Gemini:

You've described a situation where someone is objecting to a principle not with a direct counterexample, but with a series of hypothetical or potential cases, arguing that because there are so many possibilities, the principle can't possibly hold. This is a subtle but important distinction from the previous scenario. Your intuition about the principle's persistence until a real counterexample is presented is generally correct, but let's break down why and how to address this tactic:

1. Hypothetical vs. Actual Cases:

The core difference is between hypothetical or possible cases and actual, demonstrated cases. The objector is essentially saying, "There could be a case where this principle doesn't work, therefore, the principle is weak." This is different from presenting an actual case where the principle demonstrably fails.

2. Burden of Proof:

The burden of proof lies with the person challenging the principle. It's not enough to simply imagine scenarios where the principle might fail. They need to provide a real counterexample – a concrete instance where the principle leads to an undesirable or contradictory outcome.

3. The "Infinite Possibilities" Tactic:

The tactic of listing numerous potential cases is a form of overwhelming by possibilities. It creates the impression that the principle is fragile because it has to account for so many scenarios. However, this is a fallacy. Just because there are many possibilities doesn't mean any of them are likely or even possible in reality.

Addressing the Tactic:

Here's how you can respond:

Acknowledge but Dismiss: Acknowledge that yes, there are many possible cases. However, that's not the point. "I agree, there are many possible scenarios. But the principle isn't about every possibility; it's about what is generally true or what is most likely to occur."
Demand a Real Counterexample: "Instead of listing hypothetical cases, can you provide a real example where the principle demonstrably fails?" This shifts the burden of proof back to the objector.
Focus on the Principle's Strength: Reiterate the reasons why the principle is generally accepted or why it has been effective in most cases. "This principle has been shown to be effective in X, Y, and Z situations. While there might be exceptions, that doesn't invalidate its general applicability."
Point out the Fallacy: You could even gently point out the fallacy being used. "What you're doing is overwhelming us with possibilities. Just because there are many potential cases doesn't mean the principle is wrong. We need to look at actual cases."
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence": Just because we haven't encountered a counterexample yet doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but it also doesn't mean the principle is wrong. The principle stands until a real counterexample is presented.

The Role of Higher Principles:

You're also correct that a principle might be superseded by a higher principle. This is how moral and ethical reasoning often works. A general principle might be overridden in a specific case by a more important or relevant principle. However, this requires a clear articulation of the higher principle and a demonstration of why it should take precedence in the particular case.

In short: Don't be swayed by a barrage of hypothetical cases. Stick to the demand for actual counterexamples and emphasize the strength and general applicability of the principle until a valid, real-world objection is presented.