= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Don't Get Offended - 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 (588)
Yes, people who say “all X are Y” usually do know at least one person who happens to be an X and whom they don't actually alieve is Y -- but I think that in certain cases what's going on is that they don't actually alieve that person is an X, i.e. they're internally committing a no true Scotsman. Now, I can't remember anyone ever explicitly saying “All X are Y [they notice that I'm looking at them in an offended way] -- well, you're not, but you're not a ‘real’ X so you don't count” (and if they did, I'd be tremendously offended), but I have heard things that sound very much like a self-censored version of that.
I generally avoid criticizing reasoning that reliably reaches correct conclusions.
I'm not sure what the relevance of that to my comment is.
The reasoning you described reaches valid (object level) conclusions in the different cases under consideration, but you still prefer to analyze it as full of fallacies for some reason.
Huh, no. If an argument has premises “all X are Y” and “John is an X” and conclusion “John is not Y”, it is broken. Whether the conclusion happens to be true because one of the premises is false is irrelevant.
The argument's stated premises were "X are Y", you decided to interpret the ambiguous statement as "all X are Y" and then complain that it makes the argument formally false.
Re-read the fifth word of this comment. (Or am I missing something?)
You may want to (re)read this comment to see/remember how this discussion started.