I still don’t really get weighty vs decisive arguments so I’m trying to imagine what those different perspectives might look like.
Kookaburra: Weighty vs Decisive
Weighty Thought Process: The weighty way of thinking about the kookaburra example might sound like: “Well, on the one hand, its call sounds like its name, so that lends some credence/weight to the idea that its name is onomatopoeic. But then again, on the other hand, that could be a coincidence, which lends a tiny bit of credence/weight to the idea that its name is not onomatopoeic. Overall, I think these two counterarguments balance out thus: it’s somewhat possible that the name is onomatopoeic.”
Decisive Thought Process: I wonder if the decisive way of thinking about the kookaburra example might sound more like this: “Is the idea that its name is not onomatopoeic refuted by the fact its call sounds like its name? No, because that could be a coincidence. Is the idea that its name is onomatopoeic refuted by the idea it could be a coincidence? No, because it might also not be a coincidence. So both ideas are non-refuted. Therefore, I don’t know whether the kookaburra’s call is onomatopoeic.”