Talk:Appeal to the stone

message: Is there actually an 'ad lapidem' fallacy that is logically distinct from other fallacies that already have articles? The fallacy essentially boils down to ignoring the argument and refuting it by dismissing it without discussion. Is there no other fallacy that this could fit under? After closer inspection, all sources referenced in this article, as well as much of the content of the article, simply discuss fallacies in general, or various logical details about argumentation. Points specifically about 'appeal to stone' seem to rely only on the idea that it ignores the content of the argument, and not any more specific information that might identify it as a more specific fallacy. Maybe I am misunderstanding, but is ad lapidem really just a fallacy for "dismissal of an argument without considering it"? If so, is it possible to join it with larger articles or discussions about logic that go into more detail about the concept of ignoring arguments?
I looked through some of the sources cited in this article, and also searched through some blog posts and other sources, I can't seem to find any source that discusses the appeal to the stone outside the context of this one Dr. Samuel Johnson example, so it may be most appropriate for the appeal to the stone, together with Dr. Samuel Johnson's example, to be moved to another article. I don't know what exactly it would fall under though, so please let me know if any of you have other ideas or opinions. Nineofjades (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this actually its own thing?

message: The provided example of this fallacy is mistaken.  Appealing to the defendant's character is an argument, however weak, that, given the dispositions of the defendant, the inference to the best explanation in the case of the accusation is that the defendant is innocent.  A better example would be a response of "That's absurd!" or "Ha!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.106.239 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Example mistaken

message: Perhaps 6 Ghits here. TerriersFan 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) As the example stands, it's a shift in the burden of proof, so making the denier 'have' the burden of proof might be reasonable.
:Indeed.  Recall that "prove" used to mean "test" -- Berkeley's ideas were untestable, and Johnson's refutation was not.  We can all kick stones.  This article should outline Johnson's epistemological relationship to Bacon. 92.19.25.159 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformulate the assertions of the example? 

message: I appreciate the effort that went into developing a short biography of Samuel Johnson, but it isn't germane here, so I have removed it. To the extent that details about his life outside of the relevant incident are of interest, they are easily accessed by following the link to Johnson's main article. (P.S., I was expecting that WP would have a guideline about germaneness, but couldn't find one. Regardless, it seems intuitive. Non-germane information is not only distracting, but it's hard to keep up to date: anyone with improved bio info on Johnson is unlikely to realize they need to visit this article to make edits.) -- Sharpner 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the scholarship on Johnson is that fast moving.  I'm not sure what was here, but a reasonable amount of context is worthwhile.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Johnson mini-biography not needed