= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on How to debate when authority is questioned, but really not needed? - 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 (41)
What does that mean? I would expect no one's claims to be flawless, but even if OP claimed the sky is green, claiming that he is wrong because he's not a physicist is still wrong.
They seem pretty much like obvious examples of fallacies to me.
Your suggestions are possible ways to segue from what OP said into a better discussion, but the replies quoted or paraphrased above aren't conducive to such a discussion.
Let's say you debate with multiple people "Why is the sky blue and not green"?
(a) A philosopher
(b) A linguist
(c) A physicist
(d) A five year old child
All those debates are different. It's very useful to ask at the beginning of the debate where the other person is common from when you want to target arguments.
Sure, but I think the follow-up responses make it clear the other commenter isn't looking for a real discussion.
I think you are right, the follow-up responses are what indicate the fallacy intention (conscious or not).