= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on HP:MOR and the Radio Fallacy - 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 (57)
You can say that about pretty much anything labeled a "fallacy".
For example, the "appeal to authority fallacy" --> yes, an authority on the matter is not guaranteed to be right, but their opinion is Bayesian evidence in favor of such beliefs.
Fortunately, a poster already wrote an article with that thesis.
I disagree that Kaj_Sotala's post applies. Just because you label something a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. Googling the "radio fallacy" turns up this thread and nothing else related.
This 'radio fallacy argument' wants to place Harry's argument into the reference class of 'fallacies' and has nothing but a clever label and bad analogy as that basis.
I agree (I think), but I was mainly applying the Kaj_Sotala article to the quoted part of endoself's post, not so much RichardChappell's argument, since the quoted part is such a common occurrence.
Can you point out why the analogy is bad?