Archived /v/misconceptions or /v/sophism to discuss logical fallacies (newsubverses)
submitted ago by 1nsidious
Posted by: 1nsidious
Posting time: 5.4 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 684
SCP: 10
10 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived /v/misconceptions or /v/sophism to discuss logical fallacies (newsubverses)
submitted ago by 1nsidious
view the rest of the comments →
[–] TrivialGravitas 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I would actually reccomend against v/fallacies, that just encourages the logicians fallacy :)
But more seriously, it does continue an attitude that logical fallacies are damning, when in reality the whole of science basically operates on a big one: (A->B) ^ (A->C) ^ (A->D) ->(B^C^D->A) basically describes the process of experimental falsification, and is completely invalid logically. v/rhetoric works better.
[–] 1nsidious [S] ago
Lol okay
[–] totally_an_admin ago
Is there somewhere I could go to have that fallacy that you mentioned spelled out a bit more? Sorry, I'm a bit of a pleb in the world of logical fallacy.
[–] TrivialGravitas 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent (what I showed is a more complicated version, because you don't generally declare something totally and completely the truth based on one experiment).