3 ms·
Pointing out or calling out people posting BS, that is clearly BS, does not fall into any category of logical fallacy - those arguing the case that it does on
by anenefan 4y ago
Pointing out or calling out people posting BS, that is clearly BS, does not fall into any category of logical fallacy - those arguing the case that it does on the other hand ...
I've heard people in that field talk about the possibility of loops in the time dimension, but infinitesimally short period of time is involved and local. Not enough to call it the past though.
- richardw 4y agoIt’s playing the man and not the ball. Argue the point not the publisher. You’re arguing the point here, which is correct. Thinking that you can reject the point by diminishing the publisher is definitely a logical fallacy.
- anenefan 4y agoI do not know Vice's track record as per the credibility of their science write ups, nor if the General Editor is more concerned with filling white space while ensuring even if fluffy explanations make muster, fluffy fluff does not. Still the blame for fluffy fluff falls at the feet of the author and or their research team. I don't see the General Editor rejecting a story submission because it's true or has good grounds to arrive at given conclusions. As far as rejecting the point outright, well for myself, I'm not in the string field or quantum physics, but I used to read some pretty reliable sources, and bleed back was put to bed a while ago (years) ... non event now as far as I know apart from a few people who missed that memo - but would consider the possibility there's been new discoveries the last few years and with new theories, the possibility is tangible once more.
- musicale 4y agoIt isn't an error to distinguish between credibility or competence attacks and logical refutation. PP is technically - which is to say logically - correct.