You are quite religious / cultish, in your manner of drilling things down to a vilifying label, merely for pointing out when the people on the pulpit were being pseudo-scientific in their presentation to the public.
Your drug fucked memory is forgetting the legacy website threads.
I should start posting 2 year old quotes of you and Gonzo and others poo pooing COVID.
What a bunch of ret-conners. Shameful.
Wrong fallacy. You’re thinking of different informal one.
That is a false claim, regarding myself, and a serious one, given that I have had professional government duties relating to mitigating the epidemic, and its harms since it began.
For our gentle readers, Rabbit lies, and is a liar.
Posted for posterity and people with memory problems.
Ecological fallacy is a formal fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data that occurs when inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inferences about the group to which those individuals belong
I.e different spectrums of light produce different colors but when combine make white light… As seen by using a prism.
2 Likes
The exact words of the wiki article. Read a little further.
You don’t have enough data to prove it’s formal, but you can easily cite an informal one, which doesn’t mean the conclusion is unsound, simply invalidatable by an asshole who knows all the informal fallacies.
Yah I defined it for you. Because you were wrong.
1 Like
You copy and pasted.
Read a little further.
You don’t have enough data to prove it’s formal, but you can easily cite an informal one, which doesn’t mean the conclusion is unsound, simply invalidatable by an asshole who knows all the informal fallacies.
A formal fallacy must be formally proven/disproven.
Claim: 2+2 = 5.
Formally false due to the fundamental theory of arithmetic.
Easy, right?
Rabbit, the old Bullshido threads you just posted prove that you are a liar, and that your claim is false.
You personally generate a significant amount of misinformation on this site.
I was speaking to the analogy that Gordon gave I even tied it back for you.
Statistical inferences can be formally or informally wrong.
The difference is whether you can show with evidence the inference is false OR if you can show the logic isn’t well structured (invalid), regardless of true/false (sound/unsound).
Most of the time, no simple 2D graph is going to be formally falsifiable without more info. Big Tobacco used this trick to kill millions for decades.
What does that have to do with Gordon’s analogy.
Nothing, I am giving you a free lesson on ecological validity because I am a giver, so you don’t sound like The Fallacy Guy Bullshido’s AI hates.
You’re welcome. Many fallacies had to die to bring you this message. A lot of them were mine once, long ago.
You should stop trying to be stupidly pedantic, you don’t usually.
It’s annoying when anyone does.
Blame IIF. He trained me well.
You have it easy, because I have a stronger sense of mercy than the old guard.
I would tell IFF the same thing rabbit.
words do not hurt me. This is not a case of luck
This might come as a shock but Bullshido’s entire ethos is based on formal and informal reasoning.
The old way was getting even a well written but informal fallacy filled post a “block quote beatdown”, usually by IIF or a mod.
But that way is heavily flawed and leads to nothing but flame wars and lost members.
The new way is to find one little pedantic thing and highlight it, for the newbs.
The truth must be told slant, or every man be blind.
Whilst I appreciate your philanthropy, I note you no longer dispute my premise