Timeline for What is the name of the fallacy: 'we cannot clearly distinguish one thing from another'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2016 at 13:38 | comment | added | user5172 | No the quote proceeds from the denial of the distinction to all cases to the useless of the distinction in every case. "Not all trees are plants" implies "some tree is a non plant" | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 22:21 | comment | added | user8572 |
Can you please explain how your quote matches the order in the quote? The quote states: if we cannot clearly distinguish one thing from another in all cases, then the distinction is worthless or incoherent. So the quote proceeds from ALL cases to one case, no?
|
|
| Nov 1, 2014 at 7:07 | comment | added | user8572 | Will you please to respond in your answer, and not as a comment? | |
| Aug 23, 2014 at 18:15 | comment | added | AndrewC | You're right of course. Indeed, I already upvoted your answer yesterday. | |
| Aug 23, 2014 at 17:54 | comment | added | user5172 | Is that a name for a fallacy? I don't know. Focusing on the names of fallacies seems counterproductive to me. The important skill is being able to see the logical structure and come up with counterexamples. | |
| Aug 23, 2014 at 17:53 | history | edited | user5172 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
formatting, also grammar because I am a moron.
|
| Aug 22, 2014 at 18:13 | comment | added | AndrewC | "Overgeneralisation" then? | |
| Aug 22, 2014 at 17:20 | history | answered | user5172 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |