[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Argumentum ad hominem was Re: Michael Crichton dies

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Argumentum ad hominem was Re: Michael Crichton dies
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:35:04 +0100
References: <8CB0E4911123D1E-3A8-18B@WEBMAIL-DY27.sysops.aol.com> <78C351B0D794482791EF0111BDE8D78B@LENOVO>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

Yes; but in that case your argument would obviously be sound.

The conclusion would be. The argument wouldn't. I'd be right for the wrong reason. And in science that's bad, because it prevents me from understanding the right reasons, which in turn means that I'll most likely draw a wrong conclusion next time.

References:
- Re: Michael Crichton dies
  - From: dinoboygraphics@aol.com
- Re: Michael Crichton dies
  - From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>

Prev by Date: Re: The Pterosaur Species List - 3rd Edition (Updates!)
Next by Date: Re: pteroid trouble
Previous by thread: Re: Argumentum ad hominem was Re: Michael Crichton dies
Next by thread: RE: Michael Crichton dies
Indexes: