19 May 2008, 7:48 pm
19 May 2008, 7:51 pm
19 May 2008, 8:43 pm
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What do you think of:
"The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific."
"The majority of modern true scientists accept blah, therefore blah is scientific."
I know what you're alluding to.
That is technically an argument from authority, and so the second part of the statement does not necessarily follow from the first. However, the first statement being true would contribute to the likelihood of the second also being true. Logical validity and truth don't always go hand-in-hand. The fact that large numbers of experts in a field support a given statement within that field indicate that it is probably true. EG "Most historians say X occurred, therefore X occurred." It's not a valid logical argument, but it is accepted as being most likely true.Informal logic (which is what we are dealing with) is not the same as formal. Following "necessarily" is not something we can hope for, and is not the standard of informal debate. While the argument from authority can be construed as a fallacy, it is not my impression that arguing from, say, a scientific authority would be considered such, generally speaking. If the authority is such that it is a reliable or necessary source of information, then it is appropriate to cite it and makes for a valid argument, inasmuch as informal arguments demonstrate only what is likely to be true. Hence, "Scientists think X => X is scientific" where X is something like 'the theory of evolution' I think would generally be considered informally valid.
20 May 2008, 11:21 am
greenblue wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What?
Both suggests that they can both provide a rip-roaring good time!
Yeah, that's why the 'Both' option is needed.
So, personal and group ad hominems are "both" better than each other?
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded.
20 May 2008, 11:53 am
Ragtime wrote:
So, personal and group ad hominems are "both" better than each other?
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded.
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded.
Actually, if you look, it does not say "better than the other", it says "better". So, if it is better to have BOTH ad hominems, then a better option would be "both".
Well, Ragtime, two things can both be better than the other if you throw out little, insignificant rules of logic.
Well, neither sounds NEGATIVE! I mean, really, they both start with N! Neither, negative, neigathiver! And so on and so forth. The logic just flows!!
20 May 2008, 12:39 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
So, personal and group ad hominems are "both" better than each other?
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded.
It's as if the sheer magnitude of your hate and desire to rush to these attacks blinded your logic,
so that you couldn't be persuaded even to rank one listed hateful option below the other.
Two things can't both be better than each other.
Nor does the "neither" option imply that both are bad, as AG incorrectly concluded.
Actually, if you look, it does not say "better than the other", it says "better". So, if it is better to have BOTH ad hominems, then a better option would be "both".
Well, Ragtime, two things can both be better than the other if you throw out little, insignificant rules of logic.
Well, neither sounds NEGATIVE! I mean, really, they both start with N! Neither, negative, neigathiver! And so on and so forth. The logic just flows!! :wink:
Logic, insanity... it's all the same to you.
Last edited by Ragtime on 20 May 2008, 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
20 May 2008, 1:49 pm
