gjm comments on The Sally-Anne fallacy - Less Wrong

27 Post author: philh 11 April 2016 01:06PM

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

Comments (27)

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

Comment author: gjm 11 April 2016 04:55:49PM *  1 point [-]

Isn't that a completely different fallacy?

I took the meaning to be "therefore you think there are some nonsentient things I should be forbidden to eat". I agree that as written the other meaning is a more natural interpretation, but in the context of the rest of the article I think my interpretation is more likely (exactly because otherwise it would involve an entirely different logical error). philh, would you like to confirm or refute?

[EDITED to fix an idiotic mistake: for some reason I thought Elo, not philh, was the author. My apologies to both.]

Comment author: philh 12 April 2016 10:46:51AM 2 points [-]

Yes, that's what I was going for.

Comment author: gjm 12 April 2016 12:36:06PM 0 points [-]

My apologies for writing "Elo" where I meant "philh" in the grandparent of this comment. I've fixed it now.

Comment author: Elo 12 April 2016 11:05:01PM 0 points [-]

Can I take the credit for writing things I did not write? Cause that would be sweet.