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? — 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. 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)

What do you mean? It's a funny way of saying that the central premise of an argument is already wrong. My second problem is, what do you mean about rational wiki's reputation?Doublethink (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


I move to merge this page with conservapedia's "science" articles

Another version[edit]

From 'the usual obscure source': some speaker at a conference to the translator: 'Why are you not translating my words?' Answer 'You are not only wrong, you are boring.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

An earlier reference[edit]

While the article refers to Wolfgang Pauli as the likely originator of the concept, I believe this earlier reference by Charles Anders Peirce demonstrates that the concept was being articulated by philosophers a century earlier:

"Many a man has cherished for years as his hobby some vague shadow of an idea, too meaningless to be positively false; he has, nevertheless, passionately loved it, has made it his companion by day and by night, and has given to it his strength and his life, leaving all other occupations for its sake, and in short has lived with it and for it, until it has become, as it were, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and then he has waked up some bright morning to find it gone, clean vanished away like the beautiful Melusina of the fable, and the essence of his life gone with it. I have myself known such a man; and who can tell how many histories of circle-squarers, metaphysicians, astrologers, and what not, may not be told in the old German story?"

RickNMortyC137 (talk)