4 ms·

Climate Myths You'll Hear This Week

• pc86 13y ago
  On the whole, MJ is one of the worst sources for news or information on the internet.
  • GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
    • EpicEng 13y ago
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
      • GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
    • pc86 13y ago
      EpicEng is right. I wasn't saying the article is bad, incorrect or anything else because of the source. I was just saying the source is crap, it's on the same level as AlterNet. Surely there is a source without such an overt political agenda that can relay the same information?
      • GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
        I am right. You can't dismiss an article simply because it comes from fox news or msnbc and it might disagree with your own internal views. You must evaluate the article and the assertions within on it's own merit if you're going to be taken seriously in academia or legal settings. > I wasn't saying the article is bad, incorrect or anything else because of the source. Hm, sure. > I was just saying the source is crap. I know exactly what you were saying, and it's a fallacy. Read about genetic fallacies and ad hominem then retract your defense.
        • EpicEng 13y ago
          I'm sure that throwing around the names of logical fallacies makes you feel smarter, but are you really saying that the history or reputation if a source should be completely ignored? It's perfectly valid to be skeptical of a source based on their past behavior. That doesn't mean you just disregard what they say, but the OP didn't do that. Hence "straw man".