Been a minute since I felt the need to post, but surprise surprise, someone's frustratingly bad handling of presup bait inspired it. Flipping the script and taking their assumptions to task is all well and good , but what might be a little more interesting is confronting them on the concept of intelligibility.
A common beat in the presup script is that their religion is required to have intelligible conversations. It's a different focus on the fundamental claim than I normally see explored, so I think it could be valuable to unpack that idea.
I might present them with the notion of two people who don't have any philosophical belief about how to ultimately ground knowledge - perhaps a scenario where two people with amnesia wake up lost in a forest and need to survive together, then present them with the question of whether they can communicate with each other intelligibly.
If yes, then that's an admission the claim is wrong. If no, then it opens the door to probing what they mean by intelligible, which could be a rare instance of a conversation with a presup that has a hint of genuine off-script thought.
