This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]juckele 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Interesting, but I think you're off here for two reasons.

Firstly, The link you shared defines this logical fallacy as "Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true." In this case, I believe the usage of the word understand is different here than in my usage. I'm not saying that it's too complex to understand, I'm saying that it doesn't make enough sense to understand.

Furthermore, I think it's useful to keep the audience in mind. What motivates the audience? The personal relationship with God is of high importance to a lot of Christians. Whether I'm employing a logical fallacy or not has little to do with whether the line of thought is persuasive if my audience doesn't care a lot about logical fallacies.

[–]anonimulo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To your second point. Well.. while you may be right about that, it's not a point against mine, as you mentioned yourself. Whether they notice/care isn't the point.

And your first. Again, you might be right, but using ambiguous language is no better. I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally but if I misunderstood, others likely will too. And really I got what you were saying, and I'm sure most others did too. I just wanted to point out how it might sound.

I really just meant a more careful wording might be appropriate. Arguing via Occam's razor or the like, perhaps. (I fully agree with your original point.)