Timeline for Which fallacy? Explaining something based on a hypothesis
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2020 at 20:11 | answer | added | Emero | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 9:58 | answer | added | Turtur | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 16:49 | comment | added | Conifold | Keeping an open mind is always good, but accepting an explanation as it currently stands does not preclude one from searching further, it is part of it. Perhaps, what you are looking for is called dogmatism, but the opposite of it, buying into alternative "explanations" too easily, is equally "fallacious". And who is to say which is which in tough cases? In the end, it is about wrong judgment calls, not about invalid reasoning. Not everything bad is a fallacy. | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 15:55 | comment | added | user47665 | There are two reasons why I maintain it is a fallacy: 1. There are more than one "as far as we know to date"s, meaning more than the mainstream theory in many fields of study in science; and 2. By accepting explanations on these terms, as they fit into a puzzle that is almost surely flawed, we are effectively closing our mind off to exploring deeper connections and hypotheses. | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 15:30 | comment | added | Conifold | It isn't a fallacy, "as far as we know to date" always applies, so there is no point repeating it each time. As incomplete and improvable as it is, what choice do we have but to base our understanding on the best we got? | |
| Jul 29, 2020 at 15:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 29, 2020 at 15:40 | |||||
| Jul 29, 2020 at 15:21 | history | asked | user47665 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |