Example: "Napoleon was short" and "Napoleon was tall" are contraries.
This isn't a good argument that the books should be destroyed, because ithasn't considered all the possibilities: what if the books at Alexandria than the Koran, and so neither contain thesame doctrines nor contradict the Koran?Here's another example of a false dilemma.
It's advocacy, no matter what she says to the contrary.
15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ) based onthe principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do things asthey have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs ortraditions.example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good enough for me. example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.
16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: ( or playing to the gallery) refers topopular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the"common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.example: Of course we have to play "pomp and circumstance" at graduation, because that's always been the song that is played. example: Why do I make wine this way? Because my father made wine this way, and his father made wine this way.
17. STRAW MAN: stating an opponent's argument in an extreme or exaggerated form, orattacking a weaker, irrelevant portion of an opponent's argument.example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company. example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.
18. SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory)suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps oractions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope alwaysassume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.example: A mandatory seat belt law could never be enforced. You can't issue citations to dead people. example: What woman in her right mind could truly desire total equality with men? No woman wants the right to be shot at in times of war, the right to have to pay alimony, or the right to have to use the same restrooms as men.
The other is to point to the lack of contrary evidence: no counter-testimony of other eyewitnesses, no proof that there were not aliens or alien spacecraft.
why is hypothesis contrary to fact fallacious? | Yahoo …
Thus, in order to justify our claims about the way "the world" was, is, or will be, we must rely upon empirical evidence. But since our empirical evidence is no more guaranteed to be true than the claims our evidence is offered to show, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that our knowledge about the world will never be perfect, certain, and unrevisible. Empirical knowledge just does not work that way. As such, here is the fundamental message to take home from this discussion: . Here is another: . After all, the reason that so many empirical claims (and theories) deserve to be believed is that they have (thus far) survived the scrutiny of researchers who consistently try to refute them through the scientific method. Let us turn our attention to how this occurs.
What Is Hypothesis Contrary To Fact? - YouTube
In more recent scholarship, there has been a growing awareness thatthe earlier scholarly consensus seriously underestimates theirreligious content and aims of Hume’s earlier work -particularly in the Treatise. Moreover, the earlier consensusis liable to overlook the way in which 17th and18th century theological controversies and debatesstructure and shape Hume’s entire philosophy — not justhis philosophy of religion. Put another way, Hume’s philosophyof religion is now increasingly viewed as integral to his entirephilosophical system, rather than as an extraneous outgrowth orextension of earlier concerns and commitments that lack any specificirreligious motivation or orientation.
18/10/2012 · On the contrary, theories in science ..
For example, the evidence appealed to by UFOlogists consists of (1) the testimony of people who claim to have seen aliens and/or alien spacecraft; (2) facts about the type of people who give the testimony; (3) the lack of contrary testimony or physical evidence that would either explain the sighting by conventional means (weather balloon, prank, meteor shower, reflection of light, etc.) or discredit the reliability of the eyewitness; and, (4) alleged weaknesses in the arguments of skeptics against the UFOlogists.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: ..
Can both of these empirical claims be true? No. As they are contradictory, exactly one is true and exactly one of false. But which is which? Most of us believe that the second statement is the true one. Not everyone agrees, particularly members of the . Now is not the time to evaluate the reasonableness of the evidence that "justifies" their belief, for the point is this: Again, making claims is easy, especially in the presence of an audience who is predisposed to accept your claim is true. The hard part about making claims is convincing an audience who sees the world differently. There are innumerable occasions in science when a researcher must try to show, to persuade, to convince, or to prove to an audience that a particular claim is true. To succeed, the researcher must do more than merely assert her claim. Rather, she must argue for it.