= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
tailcalled comments on Revisiting Non-centrality - 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 (5)
So what you're basically proposing is that instead of saying "NONCENTRAL FALLACY!!1!!1!", people simply don't mention the fallacy and instead compare the possibly-noncentral element to the typical element of the group and explain why it's different?
Because if so, I would agree, but I don't think it's unique to the noncentral fallacy. In general, if someone uses a fallacious argument, you should be able to directly show the problem, without mentioning the fallacy by name.
... however, what you are doing is still, essentially, saying that he 'is the good kind of criminal', just in a more complicated way that the people you are debating with hopefully won't notice.
Well, you can mention it's non-central, just the second you call it a fallacy, it shuts down the conversation.
What I do depends on the situation. Sometimes you can bite the bullet and say, "he's a good kind of criminal". Other times this isn't an option, so you can try arguing that the definition of the world isn't important, what's important is looking at the facts
My point is, however, that this is not unique to noncentral fallacy.