a game of fallacies.

Status
Not open for further replies.

scifes

In withdrawal.
Valued Senior Member
i've just finished my first real lesson of philosophy, and i think it's funny.

so, let's start.

according to philosophy, science is a logical fallacy, namely a Converse Accident.

so, who wants to play? anyone loves science?


-the reason i think it's funny because i can't believe any logical argument can be immune to such fallacies. so you can either show how the arguments i present don't suffer fallacies.

or twist it around and present an argument which is fallacy-proof.
 
according to philosophy, science is a logical fallacy, namely a Converse Accident.
This is an appeal to authority: you have read that this is true, and by dint of who has told you (wiki) you have accepted it.

The Converse Accident fallacy is where you argue thus: "Every brick I have seen is red, therefore all bricks are red".
Science would conclude that we should assume all bricks are red until evidence indicates otherwise.

This is not a fallacy - as it accepts the exceptions as and when they arise and would build them into the model. It is part of the process of science.


-the reason i think it's funny because i can't believe any logical argument can be immune to such fallacies. so you can either show how the arguments i present don't suffer fallacies.
The first sentence is an argument from personal incredulity: the "I can't believe it's true therefore we can assume it is not".

or twist it around and present an argument which is fallacy-proof.
If you mean a fallacy-proof argument that it is possible to present an argument devoid of fallacies, then try this:
"This argument is devoid of fallacy. QED."
 
This is an appeal to authority: you have read that this is true, and by dint of who has told you (wiki) you have accepted it.

The Converse Accident fallacy is where you argue thus: "Every brick I have seen is red, therefore all bricks are red".
Science would conclude that we should assume all bricks are red until evidence indicates otherwise.

This is not a fallacy - as it accepts the exceptions as and when they arise and would build them into the model. It is part of the process of science.

Nicely put.

Sarkus is quite correct.

Game over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top