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.
|
Since the claims made in this argument require verification that I don't possess, I don't know whether there are factual errors in the argument or not. But given the structure of the argument, it can be fallacious in the following way:
The given argument is a chain of causality, where it is claimed that one event will have to cause/leads to the second event and so on until the last event is concluded (2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration means that....which means that...which means that...etc). One very common fallacy such arguments are prone to is the slippery slope<> fallacy. To verify whether or not this argument is a fallacious slippery slope, you need to ask yourself: How likely is it that one event in the chain is going to lead to the next? Are there other probable alternative events that can take place down the chain that may divert the route of causality to a different final event than the one proposed in the argument? If satisfactory justification is given for each event leading to the next all the way up to the final event, the argument won't be a fallacious slippery slope. |
answered on Tuesday, May 07, 2019 03:55:44 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|