Is this An example of Kettle Logic?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
A. Astrology is backed up by science
B. Absolutely not go to any university and look for the Astrology department.
A. Well you know science has been wrong before..
B. Science is based on any new observation of evidence
A. Yes but everything is relative is it not?
B. If everything is relative then the statement everything is relative…..isn’t relative.
First it’s science backs up claim then it’s actually science is unreliable then it’s Solphism.
Answers
2The first argument is incomplete. "Science has been wrong before..." therefore....?
What is person A's point?
If they're trying to say astrology is 'backed up by science' (implying it is real), then saying that science has been wrong before, this is close to conflicting conditions because they're suggesting we should trust astrology because it is scientific, then saying science has been wrong before, as if we shouldn't trust the science behind astrology.
Besides that, 'science has been wrong before' pretty much demonstrates nothing - after all, the point of science is to self-correct, not be some sort of all-knowing entity.
In the second argument, "everything is relative" is...an incomplete comment. Everything is relative, therefore...?
Once again, we have to fill in the blanks. The statement 'everything is relative' can be argued to be conflicting conditions.
In short, because the arguments are not complete, I'm struggling to get a read on what's being said...but those are my thoughts.
Moving the goalposts?
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course