RE: What makes people irrational thinkers?
December 28, 2021 at 7:55 pm
(This post was last modified: December 28, 2021 at 8:28 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(December 28, 2021 at 7:47 pm)Belacqua Wrote: [quote='LadyForCamus' pid='2082382' dateline='1640640788']
The elaborateness of an argument is not related to the truth of any of its premises, or its conclusion. Arguments can be elaborately fallacious. We’d have to examine these arguments in detail.
Quote:Yes, this is certainly true.
I was addressing the claim that someone was begging the question.
If that person is offering an argument for his position, he is not affirming the consequent.
Affirming the consequent is not the same as begging the question. The former is a structural error in a formal syllogism which renders it invalid:
“If p then q. q therefore p”
https://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html
The latter is an informal fallacy in which the truth of the conclusion is assumed in one or more of the premises. Hart accomplishes this by assuming for the sake of his argument that physical reality cannot be necessary and therefore must be contingent, which is the basis of his conclusion. As I said, his argument is fallacious unless he can show, or at least soundly reason to the conclusion that physical reality cannot exist necessarily.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
