= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Is Sunk Cost Fallacy a Fallacy? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (80)
I ask myself about many statements: would this have the same meaning if the word "really" were inserted? As far as my imagination can project, any sentence that can have "really" inserted into it without changing the sentence's meaning is at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? --> If a tree falls in the forest, does it really make a sound?
Is Terry Schiavo alive? --> Is Terry Schiavo really alive?
Is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy? --> Is the sunk cost fallacy really a fallacy?
Did you really mean “that can have” rather than “that can't have”?