« Evidence and Ersatz Evidence | Main | A Moral Dilemma »

Comments

Tony Marmo

I agree with your reasoning in general terms. But just to clarify what you mean, let me ask you this. You present the three initial points of the fallacy:
1. Theory T is committed to the existence of Fs.
2. Fs do not exist in desert landscapes.
3. Therefore, T is false.

My reading of point (1) is that it does not explicitly say where Fs exist. Against (2) the first and most obvious argument is that Fs (may) exist elsewhere.

marc

Tony, yah. I was making the background assumption that the only things which exist are desert dwellers.

Tony Marmo

Ok, I see. Your second argument against the scary movie fallacy seems stronger. If I understand you, what you mean is that the second falacy looks like the chicken versus egg Byzantine discussion: Which one came first? The egg or the chicken?

Of course, I am a suspect in this case, because I am not very fond of empiricism. Empiricism is kind of a Museum article, with a XIXth century flavour, you know.

Although I guess one empiricist could argue that since Ghouls are imaginary there can be no empirical evidence of their existence, so that it does not matter what T is. In such a case, it would be as if in a Byzantine discussion like chicken versus egg the empiricist picks either one of them... I prefer your argument.


Offtopic: I noticed you have been working a lot. Your blog is full of new and interesting stuff.

marc

"Offtopic: I noticed you have been working a lot. Your blog is full of new and interesting stuff." Thanks, but don't you mean NOT working?! :^)

Tony Marmo

Blogs are the future of academic discussion. A researcher of our generation who has no blog is like a runner without legs.

cialis online

Hahaha good point Marc, indeed too much free time.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad