3 ms·
You are confusing physics with biology, if you will. You could say the entire field if biology is redundant -- it's all consequences of basic physics -- and yet
by srtjstjsj 10y ago
You are confusing physics with biology, if you will. You could say the entire field if biology is redundant -- it's all consequences of basic physics -- and yet biology is a very useful science.
Arguments aren't presented mechanically step-by-step with a citation of rule at each step; they elide and summarize information, and skip logical steps.
The fallacies show you where to look for insufficencies, to avoid being misled by invalid shorthand arguments.
- justin66 10y agoWell, no. We can trivially identify the presence of a fallacy by knowing a few things about logic and so on. The same is not true of biology: an experienced physicist won't necessarily have much ability solving biology problems, as you know. (I don't remember thinking about the individual fallacies by name very much at all except when I was learning logic, where they were used as examples. Once you're a little more experienced, it would be akin to saying to oneself "okay, now I am using the present tense" while writing.)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]