Quote:
Originally Posted by Esseth
Whenever i am reading some new amazing breakthrough, i will read it with basket of logical fallacies in mind. Pretty much keeps me in the right direction.
There is so much out there that drives me nuts, but i just have to try to educate when i get the chance, and if it is only clearing up that there is no planet X coming to kill us for one person then that is enough. |
Thanks for your reply, Alan - a good one !
Your skeptics link has me thinking. With our recent encounters with pseudoscientists, I think we have seen all of those 'logical fallacies' during our discussions. They have also been used against mainstream points, (including the use of the Latin terms ... added, no doubt, for impact).
I wonder whether pseudoscience can be argued without logical fallacies ?
It seems that these items are also 'tactical' by nature and anyone could resort to using them, either consciously or sub-consciously, regardless of the science they are presenting. Perhaps they simultaneously highlight the weaknesses of the argument .. &/or of the presenter's skills ? We really need to separate these two aspects, fairly early in the encounter.
Perhaps these are the only tools available to pseudos, due to the lack of rigour involved in the creation of the pseudo 'theories', in the first place ?
Interesting ...
Cheers & Rgds
