Timeline for Which fallacy was committed here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2020 at 16:44 | comment | added | Fogmeister | Thanks for letting me know and thanks for the update. 👍🏻 | |
| Apr 27, 2020 at 15:23 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 148 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2020 at 15:18 | comment | added | J D | @Fogmeister I've had a change in heart. I revised my answer in light of my obvious mistake. | |
| Apr 27, 2020 at 15:17 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1025 characters in body
|
| Apr 21, 2020 at 17:30 | comment | added | J D | True, but this forum is not for original material as per the forum's policy. What to avoid in questions. Questions, including those that are closed, can be edited to bring them within guidelines. Keeping questions on-topic. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 17:14 | comment | added | polcott | When progress is made generally accepted definitions are improved. I have also derived my own home brew definition of analytical knowledge that seems to quite effectively overcome Quine's objections. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/72059/… | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 17:07 | comment | added | J D | You can certainly use whatever homebrew definition of fallcy you'd like, but just be aware that your definition does not coincide with the generally accepted definition such as the one provided in Wikipedia. It's easy to be misunderstood when you radically redefine words. This was one of the themes of the ordinary language philosophers. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 17:04 | comment | added | J D | @polcott I see. This is your own formulation without reference? Inductive arguments are described in terms of strength and cogency, not soundness and validity. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 4:42 | comment | added | polcott | I was only having a single-minded focus on the key point of what makes a fallacy and what does not. I just skimmed your full answer and the last paragraph is very compelling. Even though we took unprecedented mitigation actions we already have a death toll comparable to a very bad flue season, thus proving that covid-19 is much more deadly than the flu no matter what the actual infection rate turns out to be. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 4:14 | comment | added | polcott | @JD The sarcastic in tone in the response adds up the equivalent of a baseless rebuttal. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 3:39 | comment | added | polcott | @JD If there is a conclusion formed and there is nothing at all provided to support that conclusion then it is a baseless assertion. Not the same thing as your cited Bare assertion because citing the authority of the best expert in the field is inductively sound. | |
| Apr 21, 2020 at 2:51 | comment | added | J D | @polcott Unless I'm reading it wrong, ipse dixit requires a claim that "that's just how it is and things are immutable (because of authority)". I see no such assertion in the OP's opponent's response. Bare assertion fallacy, ipse dixit. | |
| Apr 20, 2020 at 15:57 | comment | added | polcott | If we generalize the notion of fallacy to mean anything that is not correct reasoning yet still forms a conclusion, then we can have the baseless assertion fallacy. | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 16:54 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 320 characters in body
|
| Apr 19, 2020 at 9:26 | vote | accept | Fogmeister | ||
| Apr 19, 2020 at 7:56 | comment | added | Fogmeister | Excellent, thanks for your reply. That makes sense. | |
| Apr 19, 2020 at 7:51 | history | answered | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |