Talk:Logical Fallacies

From FreeThoughtPedia

Gentlemen, this is todangst from the RRS site. I have an exhaustive list of logical fallacies on my site that I could import here if you like.

I'd like to add that one of the fallacies listed: Argument by Technobabble, is in fact not a fallacy at all. A person's inability to read an argument doesn't make the argument a fallacy. If an argument were really 'technobable' then it would be a non sequitur fallacy, or the fallacy of missing the point.

Yea, we're just getting started with the content and it will need some cleaning up - i think we're in the "piling it up" stage and then along the way we'll be filtering out the superfluous stuff.

Feel free to add whatever stuff you like. One thing I would like to do with the logical fallacies on this site is give examples of each argument, beyond the basic mathmatical formulat-type notation. --Pile 01:00, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

[edit] technobabble

I think the technobabble needs to be very clearly identified as a pseudofallacy. I was rather perplexed when I read the content of the destination link. At first, I thought the entry might have been "link jacked" by some religionist, but the history page showed no edits. Only the "Talk" page cleared up my confusion.

We might as well remove it. If it's not accurate, it's not accurate --Pile 19:01, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps not... look at things such as Gene Ray's Time Cube, Alex Chiu's eternal life rings, crystallography, numerology, astrology, or any other of a large number of subjects that rely on "technobabble" (i.e., a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of scientific terminology) to validate their claims. -- bytesmythe 01:47, 15 September 2007 (CDT)