tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940841.post113295425001321603..comments2024-02-02T07:41:55.155-05:00Comments on The Headpiece for the Staff of Ra: Logical fallacies in real life: affirming the consequentMosBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14396378353702882073noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940841.post-62356496768293105752012-04-23T03:35:35.162-04:002012-04-23T03:35:35.162-04:00I have heard and study about possibility, and for ...I have heard and study about possibility, and for me it is just ridiculous..<br /><br />Find info on <a href="http://howtomakeyourhair-growfaster.com" rel="nofollow">How To Make Your Hair Grow Faster Tips</a> from my blog !!How to Make Your Hair Grow Fasterhttp://howtomakeyourhair-growfaster.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940841.post-1133133306143517332005-11-27T18:15:00.000-05:002005-11-27T18:15:00.000-05:00Wow, Noumena, you're right. I've never seen such ...Wow, Noumena, you're right. I've never seen such specious claptrap. But in all fairness, most blogs (including my own) are basicaly just logic-free rant zones. Beating up on a blogger for logical fallacies hardly seems sporting. <BR/><BR/>Still, I've always been a sucker for logical fallacies. I mean, when you write them out formally, they look so obvious that you wonder how anyone could possibly be stupid enough to commit them. And then you look around and you realize that everyone does, all the time. <BR/><BR/>And as you point out, The Exile's post is notable more for its racism and sexism than its illogic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02620757577974844563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940841.post-1133071750723902792005-11-27T01:09:00.000-05:002005-11-27T01:09:00.000-05:00I don't follow your example. It should be analyse...I don't follow your example. It should be analysed as follows, if we're looking at its logical form: <BR/>1. If I go on a 20-mile bike ride, I will be tired. <BR/>2. I am tired. <BR/>3. I went on a 20-mile bike ride. <BR/>4. Hence, I'm tired.<BR/><BR/>Then the first and third hypothesis are redundant to show the conclusion. Is that your point? If so, then I fail to see where two propositions are being set 'equal' to each other, or how this illustrates some omission I made in my discussion in the post. Could you elaborate a bit? <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I'm not a pseudo-intellectual. If you check my profile, you'll see that I'm a bona fide intellectual.Noumenahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02442204504120141558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6940841.post-1133060869066207352005-11-26T22:07:00.000-05:002005-11-26T22:07:00.000-05:00Logical fallacy? Affirming the consequent? Your "i...Logical fallacy? Affirming the consequent? Your "intellectualism" really intimidates me (smirk).<BR/><BR/>You seem to have forgotten the point that P might actually <I>equal</I> Q.<BR/><BR/>Here's a simple argument to illustrate your omission.<BR/><BR/>- If I go on a 20-mile bike ride, I will be tired.<BR/>- I am tired<BR/>- I went on a 20-mile bike ride, therefore I'm tired.<BR/><BR/>Your pseudo-intellectualism does not become you.<BR/><BR/>Do you have any idea how silly you are?The Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16949290272811973941noreply@blogger.com