Submitted by CartesianClosedCat t3_yrtt9q in philosophy
CarlJH t1_iw7k1i0 wrote
Reply to comment by iiioiia in The Warped Epistemology of Conspiracy Theories by CartesianClosedCat
Either you didn't understand what I wrote or you are arguing in bad faith. I can't tell.
My point, which you are either unable to understand or simply refuse to accept, is that the word "belief" encompasses a wide range of things, some weakly held beliefs and others that are given the weight of fact. To treat both senses of the word as the same thing is sloppy thinking at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst, and the term for such a fallacy is "equivocation."
I like to take a bath in hot water, I make coffee with hot water. If I took a bath in water that was the same temperature that I made coffee with, I would end up in the hospital. "Hot" encompasses a range of temperature.
If you are unwilling to accept that some beliefs are held more strongly than others, then we really can't have an intelligent discussion about this.
iiioiia t1_iw7kwee wrote
You didn't address anything I said.
CarlJH t1_iw80adr wrote
Because you either didn't understand what I wrote or you are arguing in bad faith. Nothing you said has any bearing on the gist of my post.
iiioiia t1_iw8134m wrote
> Because you either didn't understand what I wrote
That is not a good reason for not addressing what I wrote.
Sir: if you do not respond to what I say, I am unable to take your seriously. Sorry!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments