Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00331)

Thanks Alan for your comments.

It's good to know that someone out there is actually reading all of 
this material!

I will read the material on the website you recommend but I hope you 
don't expect me to comment on the material! :) I'm sure you won't 
be as demanding as dear Brigitte from Vienna.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


Alan Williams <alwilli@i...> wrote:
> Hi danielhcaldwell,
> Friday, 14 December, 2001, you wrote various things concerning the
> apparently fruitless argument about what HPB allegedly did or did 
not
> do.
> 
> 
> Actually I sympathise with you - most of the so called arguments
> citing "proof" of this or that are logically fatally flawed. But 
that
> is common in most arguments these days because many people do not 
know
> all the tricks and traps of rhetoric and propaganda employed to
> promote one view over anothers.
> 
> Happily, a thorough explanation is available here:
> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
> and elsewhere on the web, just search for "logical fallacies"
> 
> There you will find that many who feel argue here are addicted to
> fallacies such as the:
> 
> From Ignorance fallacy - "because something is not known to be true,
> it is assumed to be false
> 
> Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single
> proposition.
> 
> Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to 
believing
> the author.
> 
> False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are 
relevantly
> dissimilar
> 
> Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an
> inductive argument is excluded from consideration
> 
> Post Hoc: because one thing precedes the other, it is held
> to cause the other
> 
> Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the
> premises.
> 
> ... and so on. There are many more.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Alan
> 
> mailto:alwilli@i...