« The Golden Woos #4 | Main | David Dilworth - Dishonest and a Liar. Also Still Wrong »

January 13, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"...using a fallacious argument just means you haven’t justified your argument - your argument could still be right for other reasons. Falsely calling a fallacy means you are saying something is wrong when it isn’t. "

I believe you've made a bit of a mistake there. Falsely calling something a fallacy does not necessarily mean you are saying something is wrong when it isn’t.

Calling a false fallacy also just means you haven't supported your position, since that something may still be wrong for other, valid reasons. It does mean that it isn't wrong for the fallacious reason supplied, but calling a false fallacy does not automatically make the other person right.

That's correct. I guess I didn't write as well as I thought I had. What I meant is, you're calling something a fallacy, that isn't. Of course, you're correct to say that the argument could still be wrong.

By the way, thanks for not completely retiring from blogging. :)

... finding a new Skeptico post is like finding a 5 Dollar bill on the pavement: unexpected and pleasant.

I was reading the comments thread on Dilworth's site, and was fascinated at how he apparently believed that he is soundly thrashing you in the logical discourse when it is apparent to me he is vastly over matched by you.

At times some of his comments reminded me of Bill Clinton's famous, "It all depends on what your definition of what the word IS is." testimony.

Thanks Karl. I'm going to try to write a few posts this year. It won't be in the numbers from 1995-97, but should be more than 2012.

I’m impressed that you read that comment thread. Dilworth does argue like a lawyer trying to find a loophole. He stubbornly insists that if you use an ambiguous word, it’s a fallacy. I've never met anyone who thinks such a thing before - it's just bizarre. I'm trying to find a way to get him to understand where he is wrong, but he is an expert in missing the point. And we're only on falsely called fallacy number one out of nine. It looks like this could be a long debate. Or maybe not. He holds comments "in moderation" for days and days. Look at his last comment - I replied to that on Sunday morning. It's now Thursday night, 4 1/2 days later and it still hasn't appeared. I'm not holding my breath.

Pleased to see you've got something up. I can look forward to the occasional gem this year.

To see David's response you may read the article “Skeptico’s Misconstruction of Basic Logical Fallacies – while Spreading his own Fallacy Fog”


Yes Windsurfer, I know.

I posted a detailed rebuttal to all of his points, including exposure of his dishonestly trying to cover his tracks and lying about it. If Dilworth would release comments, instead of holding them for up to a week, you would be able to read it.

I will post a short summary of Dilworth's dishonesty though, later today.

I just posted David Dilworth–Dishonest and a Liar–Also Still Wrong - a short summary of Dilworth's dishonesty, with questions he needs to answer.

To reduce confusion, I'm closing comments on this post. Please feel free to comment on this subject at the new post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site