Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Good science pushes boundaries by its nature, and pseudoscience often walls itself in with unassailable truths, but even then I concur that it is better to drop demonstrably false claims, or even dubious peripheral claims. You and I may be enlightened enough to no fall victim to the fallacy fallacy, but o…
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Good science pushes boundaries by its nature, and pseudoscience often walls itself in with unassailable truths, but even then I concur that it is better to drop demonstrably false claims, or even dubious peripheral claims. You and I may be enlightened enough to no fall victim to the fallacy fallacy, but others are not. My point is just that it *is* a peripheral issue even if you are most likely correct about the coding: It doesn't make a difference to the ultimate analysis.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Good science pushes boundaries by its nature, and pseudoscience often walls itself in with unassailable truths, but even then I concur that it is better to drop demonstrably false claims, or even dubious peripheral claims. You and I may be enlightened enough to no fall victim to the fallacy fallacy, but others are not. My point is just that it *is* a peripheral issue even if you are most likely correct about the coding: It doesn't make a difference to the ultimate analysis.