YanShen wrote:Perhaps he considers himself a theistic evolutionist. Abiogenesis and evolution are in fact distinct fields of study... If he is attacking merely abiogenesis, but not evolution, then perhaps theistic evolutionist would aptly describe his philosophical orientation.

If you wish to ask, then do so.
I assume you know how the PM function works?
Else you may open a new topic, and I might reply.

I'd still like to see this actual argument if possible.

Rumraket wrote:I'd still like to see this actual argument if possible.

I've told you where to look.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'd still like to see this actual argument if possible.

I've told you where to look.

And he's said he's unable to find it, and asked for further details.

Perhaps you didn't know it, but if you hit the small turned-corner page icon to the left of a username on a particular post, the address bar can be cut/pasted as a link which will bring anyone directly to the post in question - and obviate the need to search through a long thread for something that is hard to find.

Why don't you quit screwing around and do this, thus ending this circular tail-chase?

I'm guessing that there's no argument forthcoming.

YanShen wrote:I'm guessing that there's no argument forthcoming.

As I said earlier, or implied this is a classic case of argumentum ad nauseam. Or as I actually said argument by exhaustion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_nauseam

The irony of all this is that "rainbow" is actually using a fallacy to prove what he thinks is a fallacy.

Elucidate please "rainbow". Further attention is yours for the taking. Copy and paste from your words on the other thread which you think so relevant in this one at your leisure. I'm all ears. Or specifically eyes.

mark1961 wrote:

Elucidate please "rainbow". Further attention is yours for the taking. Copy and paste from your words on the other thread which you think so relevant in this one at your leisure. I'm all ears. Or specifically eyes.

creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-10.html#p65187

You may address the points in that thread, not here.

The irony of all this is that "rainbow" is actually using a fallacy to prove what he thinks is a fallacy.

I said it isn't a recognised fallacy.
Please read more carefully.

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

Elucidate please "rainbow". Further attention is yours for the taking. Copy and paste from your words on the other thread which you think so relevant in this one at your leisure. I'm all ears. Or specifically eyes.

creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-10.html#p65187

You may address the points in that thread, not here.

The irony of all this is that "rainbow" is actually using a fallacy to prove what he thinks is a fallacy.

I said it isn't a recognised fallacy.
Please read more carefully.

So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

So, once again, you have failed in highlighting an actual problem with the fundamentals of the argument.

I must therefore conclude that you actually don't have an argument against the core of the fallacy.

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

Elucidate please "rainbow". Further attention is yours for the taking. Copy and paste from your words on the other thread which you think so relevant in this one at your leisure. I'm all ears. Or specifically eyes.

creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-10.html#p65187

You may address the points in that thread, not here.

The irony of all this is that "rainbow" is actually using a fallacy to prove what he thinks is a fallacy.

I said it isn't a recognised fallacy.
Please read more carefully.

So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

So, once again, you have failed in highlighting an actual problem with the fundamentals of the argument.

I must therefore conclude that you actually don't have an argument against the core of the fallacy.

I think we must conclude that rainbow has no idea what this fallacy is, as he insists that he has shown that it's "a poor argument", and only refer to some minor calculation errors unrelated to the actual fallacy. This is proving quite entertaining.

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

First you established that it is not part of formal logic. Not sure why as I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Only now however has your point become apparent. That is that you are suggesting this means it is a trivial argument. I am not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting:

a) Only arguments contained in formal logic are non-trivial
b) "Serial trials fallacy" is not in formal logic
c) therefore serial trials fallacy is a trivial argument.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

Like "because someone fancy thinks so, doesn't mean that it is so" is a trivial argument. You still haven't shown why it is "a bad argument".

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

First you established that it is not part of formal logic. Not sure why as I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Only now however has your point become apparent. That is that you are suggesting this means it is a trivial argument. I am not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting:

a) Only arguments contained in formal logic are non-trivial
b) "Serial trials fallacy" is not in formal logic
c) therefore serial trials fallacy is a trivial argument.

A couple of people in this thread have tried to explain to Rainbow the difference between Formal and Informal logic but he hasn't grasped it yet I think. That is, formal fallacies are flawed because of their specific argument structure, whereas informal fallacies are wrong due to their premises. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other.

There is also obviously no requirement for a fallacy to be recognised by some "High Council of Philosophy" or whatever. I can make up fallacies right now if I wanted to and they would necessarily be considered formal or informal fallacies, even if I never told another person what they were. For example, I propose that Rainbow is committing the "Nanana Fallacy". The "Nanana Fallacy" is when people claim that an argument is incorrect because their opponent has failed to refute a trivial and unrelated fact.

There, done. It's now a cemented part of informal logic. The only way to demonstrate that it isn't a part of informal logic is to either a) demonstrate that it has already been suggested in another form, or b) show that the argument form I've presented is not an incorrect way of thinking.

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

First you established that it is not part of formal logic. Not sure why as I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Only now however has your point become apparent. That is that you are suggesting this means it is a trivial argument. I am not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting:

a) Only arguments contained in formal logic are non-trivial
b) "Serial trials fallacy" is not in formal logic
c) therefore serial trials fallacy is a trivial argument.

Nope.
There are two different threads.
The two arguments have nothing to do with each other.
Therefore there is no 'therefore'.

rainbow wrote:

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

First you established that it is not part of formal logic. Not sure why as I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Only now however has your point become apparent. That is that you are suggesting this means it is a trivial argument. I am not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting:

a) Only arguments contained in formal logic are non-trivial
b) "Serial trials fallacy" is not in formal logic
c) therefore serial trials fallacy is a trivial argument.

Nope.
There are two different threads.
The two arguments have nothing to do with each other.
Therefore there is no 'therefore'.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

The Serial Trials Fallacy is quite a trivial argument, and it is (as far as I know) not written about in any books on formal logic. Now, do you want to go anywhere in particular with this red herring, or do you wish to leave it at this appeal to authority and appeal to ridicule (which are recognized fallacies, by the way)?

rainbow wrote:

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

First you established that it is not part of formal logic. Not sure why as I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Only now however has your point become apparent. That is that you are suggesting this means it is a trivial argument. I am not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting:

a) Only arguments contained in formal logic are non-trivial
b) "Serial trials fallacy" is not in formal logic
c) therefore serial trials fallacy is a trivial argument.

Nope.
There are two different threads.
The two arguments have nothing to do with each other.
Therefore there is no 'therefore'.

I think you had a good point when you pointed out that serial trials is not related to the gamblers fallacy but this is silly. If your sole purpose in this thread was merely to say serial trials fallacy is not in formal logic without ANY value judgements relating to the quality of the argument I can't think what the imputes for the thread could possible be. Particularly when I can't see anyone disagreeing.

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
So, once again, your problem is not with "the serial trials fallacy", but the hypothetical example provided by Calilasseia.

The purpose of this thread was to show that it's not a recognised fallacy.
This has been done.
Hopefully people will realise that it is, what it is - a trivial argument.

First you established that it is not part of formal logic. Not sure why as I haven't seen anyone suggest that. Only now however has your point become apparent. That is that you are suggesting this means it is a trivial argument. I am not sure how that follows. Are you suggesting:

a) Only arguments contained in formal logic are non-trivial
b) "Serial trials fallacy" is not in formal logic
c) therefore serial trials fallacy is a trivial argument.

Nope.
There are two different threads.
The two arguments have nothing to do with each other.
Therefore there is no 'therefore'.

I think you had a good point when you pointed out that serial trials is not related to the gamblers fallacy but this is silly. If your sole purpose in this thread was merely to say serial trials fallacy is not in formal logic without ANY value judgements relating to the quality of the argument I can't think what the imputes for the thread could possible be. Particularly when I can't see anyone disagreeing.

You are correct. The subject was done and dusted at that stage.
I was prepared to let it go at that stage, but some still want to argue the point, it seems.

rainbow wrote:
You are correct. The subject was done and dusted at that stage.
I was prepared to let it go at that stage, but some still want to argue the point, it seems.

So just to bring this to a close can I ask for the following clarifications:
1. Your sole purpose of this thread was ONLY to say that serial trials fallacy is not in formal logic?
2. Do you acknowledge that this has no impact on whether the argument is accurate, necessary, or trivial?

Lazar wrote:

rainbow wrote:
You are correct. The subject was done and dusted at that stage.
I was prepared to let it go at that stage, but some still want to argue the point, it seems.

So just to bring this to a close can I ask for the following clarifications:
1. Your sole purpose of this thread was ONLY to say that serial trials fallacy is not in formal logic?

Initially yes. It further turns out that this 'fallacy' is not even informally recognised elsewhere. It was a name given by a contributor to the RD forum, but isn't really used elsewhere.
I wanted to establish whether "Serial Trials Fallacy" was an accepted term, since it was certainly presented as such. I'm glad that we've clarified that it isn't.

2. Do you acknowledge that this has no impact on whether the argument is accurate, necessary, or trivial?

Yes.
That is why I tackled the argument itself in a seperate thread.