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


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.


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.


"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