Spotting
logical fallacies like emotional appeal and reacting appropriately can prevent a significant proportion of security - related problems like the email phishing scam discussed earlier.
Logical fallacies like there is a such thing as a «Borderline Sexual Assault», I would have to point out the obvious that there is either assault or not assault in this world.
Not exact matches
I
like his post about the Sunk Cost
fallacy, as it presents a
logical way to think about big purchases you later regret.
well, I sometimes bring some of those ways of thinking and operating to this blog... I do nt» mean to, it is almost
like muscle memory... someone throws out a straw man arguement or circular logic, or some other
logical fallacy, and well... sometimes I jump at it the way I would over at other blogs without maybe taking a moment to re-adjust my attitude.
read up on quantum mechanics and tell me that sounds more realistic then the notion of a being of superior knowledge manipulating the elements of earth to create sentient man... its a
logical fallacy... if we can do what we can do in a universe four billion years old, simple statistics demands than someone else would have done it beforehand, especially if we had «evlved» so drastically in a cosmic blink of an eye, as the prophet richard dawkins
likes to put it.
as kevin so well puts it (despite the fact that chiding a religious person for a
logical fallacy is
like being angry that the rain is wet):
You mean so she can continue to be confused by all the contradictions and
logical fallacies of this supposedly «divinely inspired» book written by people with no concept of simple things
like the chlorophyll in plants that make them green?
It actually sounds
like a contradiction and
logical fallacy.
Bringing an irrelevancy
like the thieves in Congress is an extreme
logical fallacy known as «false equivalency» see link:
Like mom and dad always said, if you can't say anything that isn't a painfully obvious
logical fallacy, don't say anything at all.
wonderful I fully agree.To me economics,
like many things in life, is all about unbiased observations, unprejudiced perceptions, doing away with defensive statistical justifications, cutting off camouflaging irrelevant
logical fallacies, chaffing off bombastic jargons, curtailing the instinct to churn out untested or untestable theories and instead engage in interpretations of all the observed facts uninfluenced by any ideological affiliations taking into consideration various factors that impact and / or involved in these facts appropriate to the context and relevant to the region.
If you would
like quick rebuttal to this article they are guilty of several «
logical fallacies» which are taught in 11th Grade English.
I
like that these articles truly support the skeptical paradigm, it just needs to point both ways to keep things clean and avoiding the straw man and false premise
logical fallacies.
It seems
like I can't argue for it in good faith without using a
fallacy or two, yet I can't be expected to become an expert such that I could reasonably draw my own
logical conclusions.
That seems
like it has to be an even greater
logical fallacy.
A random accusation by you that my list of what a dogma would look
like is fraught with
logical fallacies leaves absolutely nothing to respond to.
Like the informal
logical fallacies, or any informal guideline for clear thinking, there are no rigid rules or definitions.