There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Talk:Argumentum ad nauseam
"**Note: Above examples are extremely biased and not very professionally done for a site named "Rational Wiki" I request that someone please revise this article. I cannot do it myself as I do not have the time to write an adequate definition and provide examples for the logical fallacy "Ad nauseam"" cut by
There are a few points repeated ad nauseam but would be considered "rational". Stuff like "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine" or "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour" and particularly "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Again, given the definition that they're short and oft-repeated soundbites, these certainly qualify. There are a lot of nuances and reasonings behind these phrases, but many people are happy just to cite them and bugger off thinking that their work is done easy evangelism style. I'd add them but figured it'd be best to bring it up here first. d hominem 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I tell you three times, I seen it only once
The "tell you three times" line refers to an obscure feature of the propositional calculus, in which the same wff is repeated three times making it true. Not the namey stuff either, dig deeper. Thanks from me and the logical Rev. P:D TheLastWordSword (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)