= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
J_Taylor comments on Open Thread, April 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (150)
Well, this instance is certainly a False Dichotomy. That is, the argument assumes that everything is either certain or non-negligibly certain. It also sort of looks like an instance of what is sometimes called an Appeal to Possibility or an Appeal to Probability. (1. This argument in uncertain. 2. If an argument is uncertain, it is possible that the uncertainty is non-negligible. 3. Therefore, it is possible that this argument's uncertainty is non-negligible. 4. Therefore, this argument's uncertainty is non-negligible.)
On Lesswrong, all of this is generally called the Fallacy of Gray.
Edit: Oh, yeah. This is totally the Continuum Fallacy
Ah, a specific variant of the Continuum Fallacy, applied to probability. Yep.
I'd still be somewhat surprised if it didn't have its own name yet. But if it doesn't, I suppose we can create a good neologism. What name should it have as a particular variant? (The way argumentum ad Hitlerum or argumentum ad cellarium are argumentum ad hominem variants.) Does anything snappy spring to mind?
What's wrong with "fallacy of gray"?
Nothing at all, I'm just aware enough of the variant to want a name for it.