Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

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 Archivist
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

Is "wronger than wrong" worse than "not even wrong"?[edit]

"There is one step further than not even wrong and that is wronger than wrong."

I don't get this. Whereas "wronger than wrong" is making an actual statement that is highly incorrect, the point of "not even wrong" is that it's so wrong that it's not actually stating anything. "Wronger than wrong" is a fallacy about comparing fallacies, but "not even wrong" transcends the idea of fallacy in the first place by being neither true nor false. This would lead me to conclude that "wronger than wrong" is lower on the fallacy scale than "not even wrong." Swerve (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an important issue with far-reaching consequences. . . NOT!!! ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Whatevs. Swerve (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, they're not really related. I think this is a throwback to when the article was considerably less complete. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Have separated them. Complaints to the usual address. Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

conspiracy of silence[edit]

What is this? Sorry if this is in th ewrong place to ask. It's just that from the way it sounds, it seems to fit this category — Unsigned, by: / talk 00:14, 7 April 2015‎

What on earth made you think that conspiracy of silence would fit in this category? If it fits anything, it would be here, or, if due to fear of litigation, here, or possibly here. But it's quite unclear why you actually mention conspiracy of silence here at all, BoN, so please elaborate if you don't want to risk being seen as someone who's just asking questions (and don't forget to sign your posts). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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)