Goodness me !!
The list just keeps getting longer every time we look a this aspect.
This list has 63 entries !!
It seems almost daunting to even attempt to frame a logical, justifiable argument based on past theory/empiricism. This being because we do rely heavily upon the previous authors to have observed and avoided these fallacy/errors.
I guess my angle here, is the more subtle trap of relying on others' theories, as opposed to theories sourced from self-generated ideas, which are frequently embedded within a sea of such errors in logic.
I do agree that I've seen quite a few discussions lately, containing elements of these distinctions. (I won't necessarily exclude myself in all of this, either).
It is also interesting to note that a science discussion can:
i) be based on empirical evidence, and still be fraught with logical fallacies and;
ii) be free from logical fallacies, and yet have no empirical evidence basis. (The legal process is one to think about here).
Thanks for the reminder Steven !
Cool.
Cheers