wraith said:
Do you want me to do get a def. for the fallacy then with some examples? 
That would be most excellent. You shouldn't need to go get a definition, though. Since you throw the term "begging the question" around all the time, I would assume you would already know the definition. Or do I give you too much credit?
Thats going to be a bit hard when there is dick all evidence 
But set me straight.
Thats quite a task, since you are more full of kinks than an earthworm on speed.
Tricky, youre not trying to avoid the question are you? 
I'm trying to avoid repeating myself.
Didnt I just answer this?
A) It wasn't a question, it was a challenge.
B) You never admitted that it wasn't scientific, just that no scientists agree with you.
Well the idea that consciousness creates matter is a bit "over the top" for some
LOL. Yes, and the theory that life on Earth was seeded by intelligent beings from Mars is a bit "over the top" for some. Yet, we have at least one person on these boards who claims to believe it. But it wouldn't matter
how over-the-top it was if you had the scientific evidence to support it. But of course, you would first have to know how science works.
Not strictly speaking but are you saying that without logic you can still have science?
Yes, although it would be severely hampered. Your science could be nothing more than gathering data and recognizing patterns in that data. Of course, logic is an important tool in science, but it relies on science to provide and validate the assumptions it makes.
But to look at the converse, one can definately have logic without science. For example, try this syllogism:
All ghosts are made of ectoplasm
All wraiths are ghosts
Therefore all wraiths are made of ectoplasm
That syllogism contains no errors of logic, however, both the major and minor premises are completely unscientific. Are all ghosts made of ectoplasm? That would rely on data collection, not logic at all.
The fallacy of composition...oh yeah! That points out that invisible flaw in the TLOP syllogism.
It points out that the TLOP syllogism violates the rules of logic, but interestingly, it does not invalidate the conclusion.
Here's an excellent example, provided by
Whitefork of a syllogism which contains two valid premises and a correct conclusion, yet it violates the rules of logic:
whitefork said:
Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
(Therefore) Some Saudis are terrorists.
Now if you are as good at logic as you imagine yourself to be, you can tell me why this is an invalid syllogism.
wraith said:
School me Trix. Whats this evidence that youre so confident about?
Surely youre not scared to post it here are you?
All in time, Grasshopper. Before I can school you, you must show me that you can remember your locker combination.
