= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ixiel comments on Open thread, Jun. 13 - Jun. 19, 2016 - 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 (66)
Well, provide enough evidence/arguments so that the point stands on its own merit. The general stance is "I'm not asking you to trust me, look at the evidence yourself".
Yeah, for want of a specific book counter that's what I figured. But I figured if there WERE a book method to bypass that this is the community that would know, and it'd be worth knowing. Thanks anyway.
The standard "book counter" would be to point out that the objection is a fallacious argumentum ad hominem. However, unless you are in a formal or quasi-formal debate situation or addressing an academic audience, Lumifer's suggested approach is preferable, IMO.
ETA: I wonder why this was downvoted; it seems like a non-controversial comment that is relevant to the topic.
You're quite right of course. I'll probably do both, point out the invalid argument AND have a rock solid argument of my own. Thank you for your input.