Talk:Balance fallacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Okay, so it's in dinosaur comics and it's fairly obvious that it's a real fallacy. Is there another name for this as I can't find it refferred to via google or wikipedia. ArmondikoVpostate 07:47, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Equal time? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 10:06, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I've got one reference to equal balance fallacy. --Bobbing up 14:28, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I got lots of Google hits for "false balance" and have edited the article accordingly. ... of liberals? (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this practice is very fair, I always respect the opinions of my adversaries in discussions, as long as they're the least intelligent or logical, in other words I don't feed the trolls Lalumierebleue (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a balance fallacy. If two viewpoints actually deserve 50% weight each, then it would be fallacious (aka bias) to not do so. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 19:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Agnostics

I've always felt that (some) agnostics fall for some form of the balance fallacy. The argument seems to something like this: "As we cannot know for certain that God does or doesn't exist, then the possibility of his existing or not existing are equal."--BobSpring is sprung! 10:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, only true for some agnostics, I'm not sure if it's a balance issue with agnosticism itself - particularly true agnosticism that argues that you can't give a probability of any description. Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support