Sentences with phrase «logical fallacy known»

«Willis builds a strawman Willis makes a logical fallacy known as the strawman fallacy here, when he says: The current climate paradigm says that the surface air temperature is a linear function of the «forcing»... Change in Temperature (∆ T) = Change in Forcing (∆ F) times Climate Sensitivity What he seems to have done is taking an equation relating to a simple energy balance model (probably from this Wikipedia entry) and applied it to the much more complex climate system.

Placing aside, for the moment, that this is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority — the statement lacks credibility because it is a highly criticized authority subject to the whims of political influence.

«One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.

By adopting a similar tactic, supporters of the mainstream view risk committing the logical fallacy known as «argument from ignorance.»

What you just did is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to motive, combined with good old fashion censorship.

Bringing an irrelevancy like the thieves in Congress is an extreme logical fallacy known as «false equivalency» see link:

This is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma: those aren't the only two choices.

Janey, look up the logical fallacy known as «negative proof», then you will understand how silly, your argument is.

My point is that Colin writes «tests» that display a logical fallacy known as the «loaded question fallacy».

The whole «scientists» thing is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

What you have here is a logical fallacy known as an «appeal to authority.»

This is a logical fallacy known as «Argumentum Ad Populum» aka the Bandwagon fallacy.

That's a logical fallacy known as «Negative Proof», look it up and educate yourself.

Jamie, your «fact» and entire argument is nothing but a logical fallacy known as an «argumentum ad ignorantiam».

Other than that, congratulations, that was the finest example of the logical fallacy known as an «Argument from Ignorance» that I have seen in a long time.

«Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as «moving the goalposts» in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you.

Not exact matches

But, the fact that we don't know does not mean we must suddenly come to the conclusion that is MUST be god — that's a logical fallacy — the argument from ignorance.

That in itself proves nothing — using it to argue for God's existence is simply an argument from authority, which is a well - known logical fallacy.

However by committing very human muddled thinking by way of logical fallacies, they demonstrate that their religion is no more than an indulged fantasy and that they are no more than a bunch of sanctimonious buffoons!

This logical error is a close cousin to the «No True Scotsman» fallacy.

''... Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking [1] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which «the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with».

I don't know if they did or not, but it's not a logical fallacy unless they used it in a formal argument.

Daisy and Kathleen, the set of logical fallacies that you are both exhibiting is known as Pascal's Wager.

«If all mankind inherited «original sin», then Christ was born sinful and can not by definition have been the perfect sacrifice For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin» As I said, take away one part and your whole logical fallacy falls apart.

In formal logical terms, the prosecutor's fallacy is known as «the error of the transposed conditional,» as British pharmacologist David Colquhoun explains in a recent blog post.

your statement isn't «simply true»; it's true without having any logical merit, while achieving the goal of casting a pall through logical fallacy (the emotional impact of which is no longer in any way logic derived).

So I asked her how she knew pet overpopulation was real in spite of the data and experience that proved otherwise, and she gave me the tautology that pet overpopulation is real because shelters are killing them, a logical fallacy, backward and circular reasoning, and a classic example of an after - the - fact justification.

T Marvell, OK, so now you are saying that it is a logical fallacy to cite the combination of a good correlation between ln [CO2] and temperature rise + the well known physics of greenhouse warming as evidence in favor of the consensus view?

The denialist cut - paste attempts to — via logical fallacy, hand - waving and dissembling — make it appear that... that... well, who knows but it isn't germane nor does it refute eroding coastlines due to less ice, nor does the denialist cut - paste refute the facts of melting permafrost, CH4 release, warmer Arctic temps, birds moving north into the Arctic, increased freshwater flow into the northern seas, and numerous other indicators.

We know their understanding of statistics and their computer modelling is weak, and they confuse correlation with causation, but I believe they are using a deeply flawed logical fallacy to assert their conclusions.

But those «odds» depend on a logical fallacy, major, inexplicable adjustments and models we know are broken.

This is similar to the well - known logical fallacy of «no true Scotsman» that redefines the credentials of someone based on his views or actions.

Now, I know testimonial evidence is a form of logical fallacy, and moreover a technique of propaganda, and citing works of fiction as a foundation for an argument is overdone on climate blogs overall (WUWT, Idsos, I'm lookin» at you), but documentation of international bodies in disputes should be adequate.

They know perfectly well that this can't be done, but it has the effect of permanently putting the ball in the other's court, if they don't catch the logical fallacy.

It's very important to note this logical fallacy, it is something that is far too often ignored, hidden or dismissed as irrelevant; part of the presented «proof» behind the cAGW theory is the fact that they don't know what else it could be.

Look, I know you can't teach an old dog knew tricks, but I highly encourage you to have an open mind and see both the logical fallacy in 1) and the truths mentioned in 2) above.

This is yet another logical fallacy: Stability is not «created» by «comings and goings,» no matter how «predictable.»

Argument from authority is a well known logical fallacy.