What's the name of the type of "logic" in which you use a flawed premise in order to support a flawed premise. A googling I shall go..... be back in a minute...
TM4: What's the name of the type of "logic" in which you use a flawed premise in order to support a flawed premise. A googling I shall go..... be back in a minute...
OK, so many, so many. Here are a few fallicies of logic used to support the BOM/D&C/POGP:
1) Proof by verbosity: a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
2)Bare Assertion Fallacy: a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true. For example: Mike says all cats are blue. Mike says he is not lying. Therefore it is true all cats are blue.
3)Equivacation, circular reasoning, begging the wquestion, etc, etc etc...