Re: A whole load of logical fallacies -- ExUBF's Parlor

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:27:05 01/19/05 Wed
Author: Chris
Subject: Re: A whole load of logical fallacies
In reply to: Mike K. 's message, "A whole load of logical fallacies" on 05:06:13 01/19/05 Wed

By the way, this list was quoted from here on the "Atheism Web". But to conclude that it must be automatically false or bad because it is published on the Atheism Web would be another logical fallacy. Christians should really learn to argue properly and I fully understand the atheists who are fed up with Christian illogicalness.

But I would also like to add that even scientists regularly commit these logical fallacies. Being a mathematician, I noticed this particularly often with physicists.

For instance, a physicist will find that the rotation of a certain field is zero, and he concludes that it must be a gradient of a scalar field. The conclusion is not wrong, but I have often heard it followed by the explanatory statement "The rotation of every gradient is zero." That statement is not wrong either, but it is the wrong explanation. A fallacy in the category of "affirmation of the consequent." You will find it even in famous textbooks like "Mechanics" from Goldstein. And whenever I tried to explain such an error to a physicists, he only stared at me as if I was crazy or a nitpicker.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

UBF issues and potential fallacies -- PECAS, 11:38:00 01/25/05 Tue

Re: UBF issues and potential fallacies -- Chris, 12:04:57 01/25/05 Tue

Re: UBF issues and potential fallacies -- Joe, 14:37:17 01/25/05 Tue

Re: UBF issues and potential fallacies -- Joe, 14:48:25 01/25/05 Tue

Re: UBF issues and potential fallacies -- Mike K., 08:02:23 01/30/05 Sun