This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.45.154.106 (talk) at 03:21, 5 October 2010 (→Cleanup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:21, 5 October 2010 by 66.45.154.106 (talk) (→Cleanup)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Philosophy: Logic Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: