Talk:Argument from fallacy

message: I was thinking about adding a bit more about Ginger, but lacking boldness as well as a proper edumucation in logic, decided to discuss it here first:
Wouldn't it be begging the question for our two logicians to discuss whether Ginger is a cat? It may yet remain that Ginger is Tom's wife, or that Ginger doesn't even exist. Or am I completely off my rocker? 64.90.198.6 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find the first instance of that edit here and the anon editor's talk page here (in case you want to thank them personally). V-Man737 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to add my support for the gerbil line. I hope no stuffy Wikipedian removes it as "vandalism". MQDuck 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ginger

message: Twofold problem here, I think. Especially when writing in an article on logic, it seems inappropriate to refer to the law of gravity as "extensively proven," since it hasn't been proven in the rigorous deductive sense. It's "merely" been proven to accurately predict what will happen time and again in the past, and seems likely to predict what will happen at any time in the future. And since it only predicts and describes, it can't be said that the fall is "due to the law of gravity," although "due to gravity" would be quite acceptable (but then the "which has been extensively proven" clause would be a non sequitur, in the colloquial sense).
I'd patch it up myself, but I don't quite know my formal scientific theory well enough to know the term offhand for how one would describe the theory/law of gravity to have been, umm, demonstrated, or whatever. --John Owens | (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gravity is reliable but strictly speaking, scientific theories cannot be proven.  They can only be established to work consistently according to a large body of data that statistically are reliable.  Logically, it would only take one contradiction to disprove a theory, and no one can empirically verify that a theory will work for every instance it is tested until after every instance has actually passed (that is, after the heat death of the universe, or some other boundary beyond which all activity ceases.)  -moritheilTalk 19:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of gravity proven, and causative?? 

message: Is there anywhere to look up the source that Fallacyfiles cites on the internet? Google Scholar omits that part of the book. I will contact the author of Fallacyfiles to see what he thinks. --Deleet (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The author confirmed that it is there. Furthermore, I have acquired the relevant pages and I too can confirm that it is mentioned in the book. --Deleet (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallacyfiles source

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that the ngrams aren't particularly useful here because they include a large number of unrelated meanings of "fallacy fallacy". (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Argument from fallacy →  – It seems to my view the page should be renamed to the 'fallacy fallacy' instead of the current title. Ngram  shows that the term fallacy fallacy is used twice as often as 'Argument from fallacy' and overtook it as far back as the 1960's. The other suggested titles are either too low to be registered or don't show up at all on Ngram. It would seem that the term 'fallacy fallacy' would be the better title since it is the most recognised term.
Dubarr18 (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Support; see Ngrams of all mentioned terms and Google Trends. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 June 2022