Changes

In any case, this is pretty weak. The entry's written broadly enough to cover basically all scientific inference. Strictly speaking invalid from a deductive point of view, but still. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

In any case, this is pretty weak. The entry's written broadly enough to cover basically all scientific inference. Strictly speaking invalid from a deductive point of view, but still. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Twpproblems ==

== Twoproblems ==

Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Newton's laws are not an example of an overgeneralization, but an example of an inferrence that didn't generalize as much and so shouldn't be in that set. The argument from authority section also misses that experts are only relevant if they have access to more resources of some form not accesible to the people in question (although strictly speaking, from a formal logical perspective, such an argument is never valid- but we seem to be not distinguishing between formal and informal logic here). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)