RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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 who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $6000Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Not even wrong

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This Fallacies related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

"Other use"[edit]

The argument you present in "other use" is just a restatement of the concept of "vaccuously true". A implies B is vaccuously true if A is false. However, the stated example is more of the form "A is true, A -> B, so B is true" which isn't a case of being vaccuously true, it's just a false conjunction.

Wronger than wrong[edit]

I'm not sure that the flat/sphere example is a good one, because I don't think that to say the Earth is a sphere is wrong; rather, it is imprecise. Certainly, saying it is a perfect sphere would be wrong, but not so wrong as saying it's flat. So I'm changing it. Anyone who wants to challenge this is welcome to share their thoughts here, though. --ShorinBJ

I Googled it[edit]

And yes indeed, Derpak's face was straight on the first page of images.--JorisEnter (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Relation to “mu” concept[edit]

Would it be useful to link this to to concept of Mu - where a boolean state isn’t true or false as the question itself isn’t valid? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) — Unsigned, by: Wih / talk / contribs (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say they're certainly related topics, "mu" seems to mean a question is "not even wrong", whereas "not even wrong" refers to answers. Christopher (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems more of a stretch to me since this seems to be a Western interpretation of mu: Mu (negative) § In popular cultureWikipedia's W.svg. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No. The phrase has a specific history, tradition, meaning and use. None of these is a "concept," and all of them are alien to any use of or reference to "mu," the Daoist nothingness.

Not Worth A Bronze. Not Even a Tin.[edit]

This article is worthless, a genuine threat to RationalWiki's already not great reputation. It should be taken down if it can't be rewritten.

The second sentence, "As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly "correct" conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable" is just one of the reasons why. This sentence is pure bullshit. It is an invention. The author thinks it sounds plausible, which it doesn't, and therefore throws it in, they think to pad the article with greater depth. It doesn't. It is a mere pimple on the face of an already shoddy piece of work.

Ugh! (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)