|
|
Is this An example of Kettle Logic?A. Astrology is backed up by science B. Absolutely not go to any university and look for the Astrology department.
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. |
| asked on Thursday, May 12, 2022 04:42:49 PM by alex | |
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."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
The 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. |
| answered on Friday, May 13, 2022 03:55:21 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Moving the goalposts? |
| answered on Friday, May 13, 2022 07:42:35 AM by skips777 | |
skips777 Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
