It is.
No, I'm not. An Inversion Fallacy is, in other words, projection. It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It attempts to take context from one person and incorrectly shift it onto another as if it was their own.
No, it was correct.
People. People are who define words; not dictionaries. Some words are defined by philosophy, others by science, others by engineering, others by logic, etc. etc...
It's fine to make use of a dictionary definition, so long as it is a sound definition. I might suggest a more sound definition, however, depending upon the word in question... On the other hand, it is not fine to appeal to a dictionary definition as if it is the ultimate authority of a word definition. That is a prime example of the Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.
I've found numerous. I've mentioned a few of them, and not mentioned a few others...
I've directly responded to everything you've said line by line, which is in line with my style of responding...
Yes, it IS the same exact life. Once conception begins, that "lump of cells" or whatever you prefer to call it at that point (barring any natural events such as miscarriages) ALWAYS results in a human baby being born after approx. 9 months... 100% of the time...
Yup, even between you and me.. We are all unique creatures...
Even among the same species, such as humans, qualities differ by individuals. Nobody is the same. But, as humans, we all have the natural and inherent right to self defense (survival). We all have the natural and inherent right to life. That right was not given to us by any form of Earthly government; it is natural and inherent. I believe God is the source of that right to life, as I believe that he is the one who provided it to begin with, but others who don't believe in God could instead view it as nature or Mother Earth or something else...
I'd say that a right is much different than a physical trait or an ability, though... The debate is at what moment does a person become a person. I say that it happens at the very moment of conception, while you seem to think that it doesn't happen until birth. So, you're arguing that a fully formed baby (or fetus, or whatever word you wanna use) is NOT a person until it is born. You are arguing that the location of the child affects its person-hood... There's much more to a person being a person than their location...
It's murder, though... Not by the legal definition of it, but it is still the wrongful termination of life.
Because we are all God's children. He carefully gave us life, so we should carefully be fruitful with that life. We shouldn't be creating it and then aborting it at will. We should value it as we do our own.
Nope. Not every sperm is sacred... Only the one which wins the race and initiates conception...
That's true... one can't automatically deduce that a part of a whole is sacred from the truth that the whole is sacred...
Fetuses have a mind, too.
It gets attributed to humanity because humanity was created in the image of God. The unborn have a right to life because they also have minds... They have them since conception.
Okay, I'm fine with that.
No, it doesn't. Circular definitions are meaningless. In order for a definition to hold meaning, it must reference something outside of itself. Defining a "cell phone" as "a phone that is cellular" is useless... it doesn't provide any additional information outside of itself. Instead, defining it as "a phone without a physical connection to a network" works, because it makes reference to something outside of itself, aka the physical connection to a network. It distinguishes it from landline phones, which do have physical connections to networks.
To define global warming as "warming of a globe", it makes no reference outside of itself. It is useless to someone trying to understand what it is that you are talking about. It has the same problem that defining "cell phone" as "phone that is cellular" has, especially to someone who is unfamiliar with cell phones.
If you are asserting that the Earth as a whole is increasing in temperature, I understand what you are asserting. However, it is impossible to measure the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole. Both science and statistical mathematics tell us this...
No, they aren't. Science isn't "ideas"... It is a set of falsifiable theories...
I don't need any evidence to form a theory. I will form one right now without any evidence. Cardinals will always chirp four times after two high pitched calls whenever they are next to a female cardinal. BAM, there you go. Theory formed... A null hypothesis could be that my theory would be falsified if one chirps in any different pattern while next to a female.
No, they are not, as I have explained.
You have no clue what my training is.
I got straight A's in it... It was probably my 2nd best subject, right behind mathematics and probably barely ahead of history.
True Scotsman Fallacy. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. A scientist is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
No, it's not. None is necessary. Supporting evidence is used in religion, not science. Potential CONFLICTING evidence is what is important. A null hypothesis is attempting to falsify the theory in question. It is looking to destroy the theory.
A theory is not a "sanctified hypothesis"... A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.
Yes, you could.
Correct. What you have provided is, instead, a theory. See how easy it was to come up with a theory, and see how it didn't even require any supporting evidence to formulate?
How would you attempt to falsify that theory?
Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.
Remember, absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence... evidence is not a proof.
It is only part of science if it is falsifiable, and continues to survive null hypothesis testing...
That would be how one strengthens one's religious belief in the theory of plate tectonics... That has nothing to do with science... That is the same way that I piece evidences together to strengthen my religious belief in Christianity (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is).
No, I didn't.
Redundant. A theory is an explanatory argument. Evolution attempts to explain the state of current life forms (that they evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years). It is unfalsifiable. It is a religious belief. Supporting evidence is used in RELIGION, not in science...
That's not falsifying, though... That's merely replacing one religious belief with another religious belief due to your newfound acceptance of different evidence. The best you can determine by doing that is that the two religious beliefs contradict each other, so you then know that if one is true, the other is false. In other words, you would not be rejecting your original belief because it has been falsified, but rather you'd be rejecting it because it contradicts your new religion.
Supporting evidence doesn't further legitimize any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence...
False. Any closed functional system, such as logic and mathematics, makes use of proofs. 2+2=4 is PROVEN to be true. It is an extension of the foundational axioms of mathematics. It is definitely true.
Yup, I could be.
Correct.
Correct. Science does not make use of proofs, as it is an open functional system, as opposed to logic and mathematics, which are closed functional systems (operating under foundational axioms).
Correct. They could change their beliefs regarding those things, due to different evidence or different views of the same evidence. BUT those theories can't be falsified (except for natural selection, which already has been falsified)...
Nope. Only natural selection is falsifiable, and has been falsified.
Incorrect.
Nope, that's how RELIGION works... Also, you can't falsify unfalsifiable theories. You can only make use of supporting evidence in those cases...
Bigotry. I am not interested in your hateful bigotry, Oneuli...
I don't find those theories to be troubling at all... In fact, I, as a Christian, accept the theory of evolution as true. I am agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory.
Theistic people who rejects those theories for that reasoning are fundamentalists of their Theistic religions... They are committing numerous fallacies by rejecting those theories by that particular reasoning...
The same standard applies to them... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Those theories (outside of natural selection) are not falsifiable, therefore they are not science.
Global Warming rejects logic, science, and statistical mathematics. I could go through each one in detail if you would like...
We don't even know if it is happening... We have no way of accurately measuring absolute global temperature...
AGW is ACCEPTED as a matter of faith... It is rejected on the basis of it rejecting logic, science, and statistical mathematics...
Science is not religion. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.
Faith is circular reasoning. That's all faith is. Faith has nothing to do with the presence or absence of evidence...
Already refuted this type of reasoning. See above.
Already refuted... See above.
I've directly addressed it multiple times, yet you keep repeating your same mantra that is does make use of it somehow. I have shown you how and why you are actually describing religion as opposed to science.
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this...
I already have...
Yes, it has been falsified.
Yes, it does. I can go through each one if you'd like...
Evidence is not a proof. We've been through this. Again, I can go through each reason specifically as to why AGW is a load of garbage...
That's what YOU'VE been arguing THIS WHOLE TIME... Now you're denying your own argumentation... You said that "new" supporting evidence can falsify "old" supporting evidence (not those exact words, but I'm not going to look up exactly how you phrased it).
No, you don't. You keep describing religion as if it was science...
I am a strong supporter of both of them.
No, it isn't. It is about falsifiable theories.
Yes... it is about unfalsifiable theories. All religious are based upon an initial circular argument, and circular reasoning is just another way of saying faith.
Correct. In a general sense, one deals with the falsifiable and the other deals with the unfalsifiable...
No, it isn't.
Bookmarks