= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Pablo_Stafforini comments on Useful Concepts Repository - 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 (105)
Vipul Naik's concept of a twofer: the attempt to undermine a claim by combining two objections that would be substantiated by opposite empirical facts, and by arguing that one of the objections must hold regardless of how the facts turn out to be.
That's not necessarily a fallacy. That's more of an application of the law of the excluded middle.
Who said it was a fallacy? Seems like a valid argument to me.
The article you linked to for one.
I'm not trying to be dense, but where does the article claim that "twofers" are fallacies? Can you quote the relevant passage?
EDIT: FWIW, I asked Vipul and he denies that the article makes such a claim. He also notes that the argument would be fallacious if its proponent argued that both of the empirical facts obtain (rather than arguing that one of the two must obtain).
It doesn't say that explicitly, but he doesn't sound very convinced that the argument is valid either; but hey, word of God.
I like the concept, I don't like the name. "Twofer" is getting two of something for the price of one and I don't think the word maps neatly to the concept.