Timeline for Searching for name of this logical fallacy: presuming a consensus
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2022 at 17:13 | comment | added | J D | @CodyGray I'll start here w WP's hyperlink style guide, and see if I can't improve my performance. Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate you taking the time to help me. | |
| Mar 22, 2022 at 16:42 | comment | added | J D | I will poke around on the Internet and see what I can see in terms of style guides, however. | |
| Mar 22, 2022 at 16:41 | comment | added | J D | @CodyGray That being said, I'm open up to your personal recommendations on style guide. I'm simply not going to write an answer, mention mereological nihilism, and not include a link to it in a subsection of an SEP which is a site the average questioner doesn't even know exists. Besides, the number of times I've had someone challenge the language in my reference wouldn't fit on my fingers and toes, so again, your claims kind of make you an odd duck. I'm a professional developer, and Stack Overflow and the anonymous cowards who inhabit it are a different crowd anyway. | |
| Mar 22, 2022 at 16:38 | comment | added | J D | @CodyGray Of course it's done in good faith in accordance with how wiki culture functions. My use of links seems reflective of generally accepted wiki practices; but over the last three years, I've mostly relied on frequent complements about thoroughness and precision, and had exactly 0 people before you even broach the topic which puts me in an evidential bind: you're simply in the minority position. | |
| Mar 22, 2022 at 4:44 | comment | added | Cody Gray - on strike | Reconsideration of whether you actually think it is helpful to people. We've had users do this on Stack Overflow, and it's attracted a lot of complaints. I'm sure you are doing it with good faith, assuming people will find it helpful, but I am questioning that presumption. | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 12:58 | comment | added | J D | @CodyGray Thanks. I made a correction. : D As for your urge to share your feelings on the elements of style, what sort of reaction on my part are you looking to elicit? | |
| Mar 21, 2022 at 12:53 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 90 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2022 at 8:29 | comment | added | Cody Gray - on strike | That would be, "presumes facts not in evidence"; you have it reversed. More generally, I am not sure that I agree with this style choosing to link every key word or phrase to a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to know more information, they can look it up themselves. I can understand doing it for things that are not well-known, but come on, "metaphor", "debate", "reason"... these are all very commonly known and understood terms. At that point, the constant hyperlinks just become noise. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 23:29 | vote | accept | C D | ||
| Mar 19, 2022 at 22:15 | comment | added | C D | Thanks for detailed explanations. I think "contested premise" is relevant since, as mentioned in my comment, I can easily refute with an engineer (A & B are not equal) but not with "boss of boss". You also mention "appeal to authority" which is apparently applicable in the latter case. | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 17:30 | comment | added | J D | @DcleveThx. I've gone and added your language and link to the Short Answer. Many hands! | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 16:59 | comment | added | Dcleve | It is not just a contested premise in this argument, but specifically a "false premise". Here is a link to make that point: effectiviology.com/false-premise | |
| Mar 19, 2022 at 14:07 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2022 at 14:02 | history | answered | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |