Arandur comments on How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3 - Less Wrong

52 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 27 September 2007 11:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (381)
Tags: bayesian philosophy religion

Comments (381)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MatthewBaker 30 July 2011 04:17:11AM 0 points [-]

I trust you understand that the existence of fallacies does not equate to a false conclusion. If I base my conclusion X on arguments A, B, C and D, and D is fallacious, X may still happily rest on A, B and C.

I just think that if the DNA evidence isn't there then how can i consider the possibility of the book of Mormon having any truth to it. It feels a lot like considering the possibility of Intelligent Design as the origin of humanity. If A, B, and C preclude the existence of D then X is weakened more by the disproof of D then if it is a standalone piece of evidence.

Comment author: Arandur 30 July 2011 05:11:04AM 0 points [-]

But the DNA evidence is there. You pointed to a piece of it, and then said "but the rest is mostly bull". But that doesn't mean that the evidence you found ceases to be valid.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit