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.
|
What's the fallacy called, where the premise is the same as the conclusion? I think that alone wrecks the structure of the argument. P3 : This is of no consequence and is irrelevant P4 : Unsupported opinion C: Non Sequitur |
|||||||
answered on Monday, Oct 18, 2021 03:36:12 PM by account no longer exists | ||||||||
account no longer exists Suggested These Categories |
||||||||
Comments |
||||||||
|
|
First off, this is circular reasoning, because the first premise directly implies the conclusion (it looks more like a statement of what you want to prove rather than a premise). The second premise appeals to an anonymous authority, because it appeals to “100s of Dr’s”, without specifying or giving an example. I’d also say it commits the fallacy of cherry picking, as it ignores a lot of contradictory evidence. The third and fourth “premises” seem to be a (unsupported) preemptive counterargument to why the doctors haven’t been sued, but it’s not very clear. |
answered on Monday, Oct 18, 2021 03:29:46 PM by account no longer exists | |
account no longer exists Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|