|
|
What kind of fallacy is committed when people keep ignoring refutation of their premises?Suppose Smith uses P as a premise. He keeps using it even after it is criticized and refuted. What fallacy does he commit?
|
| asked on Sunday, Oct 08, 2017 02:34:32 AM by Sing | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
This kind of behavior is generally seen as a cognitive bias or even a departure from the reasoning process (rather than an error within reasoning). A clear refutation deserves acknowledgement or at least a counter refutation (a refutation of the refutation). A strong confirmation bias might lead to the person overlooking the obvious refutation to protect him or her from being wrong. Or, the person might be aware of the strong refutation, and simply ignore it because they are more interested in the perception of being right than in the truth. This essentially breaks the rules of argumentation and honest dialectic with a basis in reason.
|
| answered on Sunday, Oct 08, 2017 06:31:15 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
Willful Ignorance. When that occurs, you can't reason w/ people like them. And you've got to move on.
|
| answered on Monday, Oct 09, 2017 11:32:09 AM by Your Supreme Excellency |
Comments |
|
| |
