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: $3220Goal: $6000

Argumentum ad dictionarium

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Armondikov
Jump to: navigation, search

Well yeah. But the most crushing part of this kind of debate with me is agreeing with the concept but having a 'but...' about the argument itself, which leads the other person to keep fighting when you aren't really warring with him.

It's not, of course, an excuse to simply define away your problems. Proving something is a linguistic illusion doesn't make it a conceptual illusion (and vice versa).

Scarlet A.pngpostateModerator12:56, 7 September 2012

That's why I'm an ontological pluralist. (Yes, I did write that just to shoehorn in Wittgenstein.)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:59, 7 September 2012

I think I might try that film example next time anyone raises the fact that fiction "isn't real". See how far I get before everyone is thoroughly confused and/or pissed off.

Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator23:22, 7 September 2012