Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
If we are focusing on just the fallacious argument, Person 1 is clearly moving the goalposts . They started with an argument from age then when called out on that, changed the argument. Besides fallacies, I would argue that Astrology is not at all "completely harmless" and every person who believes in it is a victim of bad ideas. |
answered on Thursday, Sep 23, 2021 04:39:14 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Person 1's logic is something like, "if it has been around for a very long time, then there is some truth in it." Person 2 then does a valid reductio ad absurdum to expose a flaw in the line of reasoning ("is there truth in forced marriages, because they've been around for a long time?") Person 1 then employs special pleading (as Dr Bo points out, this can also be considered moving the goalposts) to avoid conceding the point.
You're right - and these are two different conversations. The first is "do traditions have truth in them?" and the second is, "are they harmful?" A belief can be harmful and false, or harmless and false, or something else. But the effect of the belief is not the same as its truth value.
|
answered on Thursday, Sep 23, 2021 09:48:03 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|