Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal logic"
(Removed "poor") |
(→Removed "poor": causation can be disproved by a counterexample) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only ''poor'' counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST) | A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only ''poor'' counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :Ok, causation can also be disproved by a good counterexample. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:53, 18 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:53, February 18, 2008
that new laws reducing the gun ownership rate by 0.1% and a subsequent election of a left wing government are not linked
What on earth is this tripe supposed to mean? If gun ownership had not been reduced by 0.1% a left wing government (where? how?) would not have been elected? How? By the 0.1% blockading the polling stations with their weaponry? Or is some other 'reason' bubbling away in the peculiar mind of whoever came up with such an argument? Sawneybeane 16:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)
- It's obvious. -- Ferret Nice old chat 17:13, 15 February 2008 (EST)
- "...the largely defensive weapon of gun..." I liked that actually! Feebasfactor 16:55, 15 February 2008 (EST)
"except the conservative truth"
I wonder if anyone would agree that reverting my edit from reading "conservative views" to reading "conservative truth," and thereby implying that "conservatism = THE TRUTH" can be interpreted in light of items 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 19 of the extremism article.Rodney 17:34, 16 February 2008 (EST)
- I'd say that article probably needs to be fixed for "liberal bias" anyway. Feebasfactor 18:42, 16 February 2008 (EST)
- ROFLMAO! Rodney 18:43, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Removed "poor"
A correlation absolutely can be disproved by a good counterexample. (Correlations are, by themselves, rather weak arguments anyway.) It's only poor counterexamples that could be considered an illogical refutation of a correlation. HelpJazz 01:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)