Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: moonhawk

Argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
***Abduction is a kind of logical inference described by Charles Sanders Peirce as “guessing”.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

And yet, it is still classed among the fallacies.

Your usage of it here is not convincing at all. Since you’ve offered the postulation, the “burden of proof” is on you. But you know that you cannot prove it, since it involves abduction. So that raises the question why you would suggest that proof of any kind is involved?

But, of course, you chose to pose your ad hominem as a question, so you can dodge that bullet.
***I used an Ad Hominem? How am I attacking you or even Gingrich by asking about whether he has the courage to do something?

What do they call that?
***They call it a hodge-podge, as in, you’re not really familiar with classic fallacies, abductive reasoning (which emphatically does NOT involve proof nor burdens of proof), and you just threw all of it together hoping it would sound intelligent.


112 posted on 03/23/2012 8:01:52 AM PDT by Kevmo (If you can define a man by the depravity of his enemies, Rick Santorum must be a noble soul indeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]


To: Kevmo

Of course I was being silly.

Responding in kind.

But your “question” was certainly an implied ad hominum on Newt. That’s what I was referring to.

Which is absurd in itself as it presumes that it takes balls to make a stupid statement.

All it actually takes is stupidity.

But being the expert on logical fallacies, you knew that.

Peace. :-)


119 posted on 03/23/2012 11:33:49 AM PDT by moonhawk (Rush, Mark, Sean: Conservative talkers. Sarah, Newt: Conservative DOers. Mitt: Conservative faker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Kevmo

Of course I was being silly.

Responding in kind.

But your “question” was certainly an implied ad hominum on Newt. That’s what I was referring to.

Which is absurd in itself as it presumes that it takes balls to make a stupid statement.

All it actually takes is stupidity.

But being the expert on logical fallacies, you knew that.

Peace. :-)


120 posted on 03/23/2012 11:33:49 AM PDT by moonhawk (Rush, Mark, Sean: Conservative talkers. Sarah, Newt: Conservative DOers. Mitt: Conservative faker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson