Misplaced Pages

Talk:Open-question argument: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →
Revision as of 21:26, 5 January 2012 editAnthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)209,150 editsm moved Talk:Open Question Argument to Talk:Open question argument: Requested at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves as uncontroversial (//en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves&oldid=#movereq-Open_Question_Argument)&wpMovetalk=1← Previous edit Revision as of 23:27, 5 January 2012 edit undoDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers477,084 editsm moved Talk:Open question argument to Talk:Open-question argument: hyphenate like the cited sourcesNext edit →
(No difference)

Revision as of 23:27, 5 January 2012

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Logic Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Logic


Cleanup

While I think my changes (better organization, extra rebuttals, citations etc.) improve from where it was before, I'll let the "clean up" box remain for now; I cited from only one book, after all. If anybody else thinks the box isn't needed though, feel free to remove it. I didn't remove it partly because, to me, it neared a conflict of interest (am I the the most unbiased judge to tell my changes were good enough?). --Wade A. Tisthammer (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 'closed question' example: Perhaps, I have misunderstood your point, but it is possible for someone who does not eat meat to NOT be a vegetarian. They could be a fruititarian, for example (I believe this is the correct term), or a vegan. Although the point of your example, if left unchanged, will probably be retained by the average reader, it would probably be best to insert an example without a counterexample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.154.106 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Why does open question argument divert to naturalistic fallacy but open question diverts to this page and the title reads 'Open Question Argument'? Naturalistic fallacy appears to be better sourced and talks about the same thing. -Bottlecapninja 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the last paragraph it reads "Others hold..." who are 'others'?MrMelonhead (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Masked Man ... The matter is an empirical one, which the citizen must investigate a priori." ?should 'a posteriori' DavidWongShee (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories: