You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gjm comments on The Sally-Anne fallacy - Less Wrong Discussion

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.