3 ms·

That’s not a “style” of argument, it’s basic logic. To the extent you can’t define something the strength of your claim that it does not exist is corresponding

• emp17344 1y ago
  Similarly, if you are unable to define something, your claim that a computer program is doing that thing is greatly weakened. If anything, the burden of proof is on you.
• keybored 1y ago
  Define God, the ineffable and all-powerful. Awaiting your effable answer.
• whilenot-dev 1y ago
  That’s certainly a style of argument and contains (with "basic logic") an informal fallacy[0]. To quote N. Chomsky when he made an analogy: "When you have a theory, there are two questions you'd need to ask: (1) Why are things this way? (2) Why are things not that way?"[1] I get it, this post-truth century is difficult to navigate. Engineering achievements get picked up through a mix of technical excitement and venture boredom, its fallacies are stylized by growth hackers as this unsolvable paradox that seems to fit just the right terminology for any marketing purposes, only to be piped through one hype cycle that just paints another picture of the doomsday of capitalism with black and white colors. /rant [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuGfh4UR9Q&t=9438s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuGfh4UR9Q&t=9438s