Talk:Open-question argument: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:59, 18 November 2009 editPollinosisss (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,435 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:21, 5 October 2010 edit undo66.45.154.106 (talk) →Cleanup Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	While I think my (better organization, extra rebuttals, citations etc.) improve from where it was , I'll let the "clean up" box remain for now; I cited from only one book, after all. If anybody else thinks the box isn't needed though, feel free to remove it. I didn't remove it partly because, to me, it neared a conflict of interest (am I the the most unbiased judge to tell my changes were good enough?).		While I think my (better organization, extra rebuttals, citations etc.) improve from where it was , I'll let the "clean up" box remain for now; I cited from only one book, after all. If anybody else thinks the box isn't needed though, feel free to remove it. I didn't remove it partly because, to me, it neared a conflict of interest (am I the the most unbiased judge to tell my changes were good enough?).
	--] (]) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)		--] (]) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

			On the 'closed question' example:
			Perhaps, I have misunderstood your point, but it ''is'' possible for someone who does not eat meat to NOT be a vegetarian. They could be a fruititarian, for example (I believe this is the correct term), or a vegan. Although the point of your example, if left unchanged, will probably be retained by the average reader, it would probably be best to insert an example without a counterexample.

	==Miscellaneous==		==Miscellaneous==

Revision as of 03:21, 5 October 2010

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Cleanup

While I think my changes (better organization, extra rebuttals, citations etc.) improve from where it was before, I'll let the "clean up" box remain for now; I cited from only one book, after all. If anybody else thinks the box isn't needed though, feel free to remove it. I didn't remove it partly because, to me, it neared a conflict of interest (am I the the most unbiased judge to tell my changes were good enough?). --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 'closed question' example: Perhaps, I have misunderstood your point, but it is possible for someone who does not eat meat to NOT be a vegetarian. They could be a fruititarian, for example (I believe this is the correct term), or a vegan. Although the point of your example, if left unchanged, will probably be retained by the average reader, it would probably be best to insert an example without a counterexample.

Miscellaneous

Why does open question argument divert to naturalistic fallacy but open question diverts to this page and the title reads 'Open Question Argument'? Naturalistic fallacy appears to be better sourced and talks about the same thing. -Bottlecapninja 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the last paragraph it reads "Others hold..." who are 'others'?MrMelonhead (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories: