3 ms·
> Um, that's an assertion, without which the rest of the piece makes no sense. I would have expected a little evidence to back the assertion up... How, exactly
by kevincennis 12y ago
> Um, that's an assertion, without which the rest of the piece makes no sense. I would have expected a little evidence to back the assertion up...
How, exactly, would you expect the OP to present evidence of Apple not showing interest? What would that "evidence" look like?
I can't provide evidence that my golden retriever doesn't have an advanced understanding of quantum mechanics, but I don't think that would get him a job at CERN.
- lordbusiness 12y agoThe parent makes a solid point, and you're employing this logical fallacy, which is why I am down voting you.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
- heinrich5991 12y agoSay what's wrong, but don't call it "that fallacy". Those "appeals to fallacies" are really what destroys useful Internet discussions.
- gwern 12y agoRidicule is not what he's appealing to, rather, the basic evidential principle that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
- csixty4 12y agohttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]