Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
Let's start by making this a clear argument with premises and a conclusion: P1. More people have died throughout history from box jellyfish stings than from shark attacks. C. Therefore, box jellyfish stings are almost always fatal. This is a clear non sequitur as we are missing information to make that conclusion. Perhaps we can also say that what the argument is suggesting is that: P1. Shark attacks are almost always fatal (missing information - implied) The form of this would be: This is a form of the fallacy of four terms . There is no logical connection between the terms because we introduced four of them into the syllogism (shark bite, jellyfish sting, fatal, common). |
answered on Tuesday, Jan 03, 2023 07:34:10 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
I'm racking my brains - there should be a term for this - but I can't think of one. I will say that: P) More people throughout history have died from box jellyfish stings than shark attacks C) Box jellyfish stings are almost always fatal is a non sequitur. If one wishes to defend the claim that X is "almost always" (i.e. 90% of the time, or more frequently than that) the case, they need to do more than show that X is more frequent than Y. In fact, they ought not to compare X and Y at all. They need to look at the total set of cases, and then compare cases of X to those of not-X. In this example, one would need to look at all the times people were stung by box jellyfish, then look at the percentage of those people that died. So the claim is fallacious; I just lack the appropriate term. |
answered on Monday, Jan 02, 2023 07:09:31 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|