In 1898, Morgan Robertson wrote a novel titled “Futility.” They were both killed on a Friday while sitting next to their wives, Lincoln in the Ford Theater, Kennedy in a Lincoln made by Ford.īoth men were succeeded by a man named Johnson – Andrew for Lincoln and Lyndon for Kennedy. Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. Both were shot and killed by assassins who were known by three names with 15 letters, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, and neither killer would make it to trial. Kennedy were both presidents of the United States, elected 100 years apart. The Truth: You tend to ignore random chance when the results seem meaningful or when you want a random event to have a meaningful cause.Ībraham Lincoln and John F. It's the reverse of predicting what is going to happen and seeing (or making) it happen.The Misconception: You take randomness into account when determining cause and effect. Then something else happens - and they claim that that was also their objective. After the fact someone comes along and claims the thing that happened was their objective. The way this works is first something (anything) happens. So how does the fallacy work with history/detective work?– - Unsigned, by: 75.164.225.115 / talk / contribs I'm not sure you are looking at in the right way. You can’t get the president, the car, the crowd, the gunman and run the experiment a few times to see what happens. You can’t run an experiment on how jfk died. But how does it interact with history/detective work. ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 01:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I am a bit confused You're not only conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis, but your also doing a piss poor job of understanding the latter, given that you seem to using a variant of the fine tuning argument as well as what appears to be an argument from complexity. Moreover, the molecules are so fragile and the conditions under which they could form only occur within the ribosomes of living cells, not in a mud puddle. What is known from direct observation about the probabilities of amino acid molecules forming out of a soup of atoms by purely random means and those molecules assembling themselves by the tens of thousands into specific proteins and DNA strands tells us it ain't gonna happen, ever. Only someone with a poor understanding of the complexities of DNA and living cells would have included it in the article. The paragraph on "random" evolution is a really, really bad example of the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" and should be removed from the article. Gcolvin ( talk) 23:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)gcolvin Full disclosure: Bem chaired my thesis committee at Cornell. One ambiguous comment by Bem does not suffice to prove a fallacy: you need to demonstrate the fallacy in the paper itself and/or with a fair survey of the ongoing debate and attempted replications. Rather, it describes Feeling the Future as thoroughly peer-reviewed work by a careful scientist. I won't take out the section just yet, but the referenced article is not an example of the fallacy. BTW, I seriously deny that a great flood has happened ) Senator Harrison ( talk) 02:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, thats what I figured after thinking about it more. The builders are uplift due to tectonic processes, volcanism, sedimentation and compression, etc. ħuman 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC) By the way, the geological stuff was formed by building and destroying processes, of which glaciers are but one of the destructive ones, unless you count "building" moraines like Cape Cod and Long Island. In this case there is no further experiment - his friends don't say "do that again". Yes, but then the hypo is used to make predictions which are tested by experiment or further observations. Senator Harrison ( talk) 21:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC) ħuman 20:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT) I'm confused by this Īren't most hypothesis's formed like this in the first place? How is saying that the geological formations are formed by glaciers any different? You can't make any inferences until you see said geological formation. I agree that the "example" section is hard to follow. The main point is that the hypothesis is formed after the data is collected. Could somebody maybe edit them to point out the link? Maybe showcase only one of these examples (like the lottery one) and make it clearer who made what hypothesis and used what data? I can sorta-kinda guess what the examples are aiming at, but overall, I'm feeling somewhat unsatisfied. I'm not really sure how the examples demonstrate the fallacy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |