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.
|
To clarify, The circumstantial fallacy (An appeal to bias) is only a fallacy when one suggests that if one source is biased, it must be wrong. Though if you want to see if this is, "similar". If you want to learn about religions from academic, scholarly and objective sources that are not, "biased" that is completely fine because bias can have a lower probability of accuracy potentially. If that is what you choose to do, then no it is not a fallacy because it's probabilistically correct even thought you could still find biased sources that say the truth. Though as far as I am aware, in an argument if you rejected a source because it is, "biased" then this would be the genetic fallacy . |
answered on Thursday, Jan 06, 2022 05:49:41 PM by Alex | |
Alex Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|