As always, I remain open to the possibility that new evidence may emerge to document benefits from such diets that might justify the risks they present, but for now this feeding approach appears to be simply another form of CAM mythology supported only by anecdote and
unsound logic.
Unsound logic is no more appropriate in the religion section than anywhere else.
Not exact matches
Wallsten's economic
logic isn't entirely
unsound, but it does fail to take into account several factors.
If We are to «Go G - dless» as the graphic suggests just because a few Fools abuse religion, then by the same
logic We should also abstain from alcohol just because a few Fools drive drunk, abstain from communicating just because a few Fools put forth
unsound argument, and abstain from eating just because a few Fools eat too much.
Either way if you mean he needs no guidance or if he needs to guide — either way that assumption is untestable therefore your
logic is
unsound.
What one needs is an all - inclusive
logic — a «grand
logic,» in Peirce's phrase — in which the positive achievements of these various alternative
logics can be accommodated without having to pay the high, inflationary prices they usually demand: excessive ontic commitment and involvement, «fuzzy» semantics, excessive and perhaps
unsound or at least dubious axioms and rules, and failure to achieve the kind of «maximum logical candor» that should be aimed at.